Morality is given by the biblical God

I would now like to waste some room by trying to save face. P1: Moral behavior is affected by selective pressures including environment and social. I will not explain this much further as Pro has already accepted this premise. But let us acknowledge that it is possible to understand the origin and explanation of moral behavior. If we agree that morals indeed adapt and change and vary, any proposed objectivity is merely an opinion. Objective is void of opinion, but opinion is not void of objective assumptions. P2: For objective morality to be true we would need to show either an Objective law giver, or an objective law. Evidence for the "god", is inconclusive. We can measure effects on nature, but if the cause is beyond nature, all we are left with is subjective. The supernatural cannot be verified for if it were it would no longer be super, but just natural. A god, or a creator of objective morality is very difficult, bordering on impossible, to prove or disprove. It is merely an assumption or an opinion, no matter how widely it is believed or accepted. Any groups ultimate truth, to other groups is just faith based assertions. Any believer could say that it is true whether or not you believe, but is that true? Why? Is that not ultimately just opinion? Nothing can be objectively moral without a perception and opinion that it is in fact objectively moral. In order for something to be RIGHT or WRONG, we must consider it. We must justify it. All consideration and justification is based on our minds, our experiences, our development. It is an epistemology in a sense, and not an ontology. There is no underwriter of the "truth" of a moral claim, there is only an explanation to how that claim may have arisen. C: Morality is subjective. In absence of any way to prove the existence of an ultimate source for objective morality, or that any moral stance is indeed objective, there can be no objective morality save for a subjective opinion of the ontology of such. If P1 is accepted, that morality or the source of such can arise through evolution and social development, we can conclude a logical and natural source for morality or moral behavior. If P2 is true, and there is no way to identify either an objective morality or a giver of such morality, it is invalid to assume such morality exists. Rebuttal. Pro stated that objective morality is intuitively perceived. (P1-1) This seems like an indefensible claim. He is indicating that we all possess objective moral values and we are all aware of it. If these were objective; agreed or disagreed; we should all be able to share what those specific values were. And since they are perceived, if they did not line up with those of all others; the values are not objective! Would any line up across populations, or history? In P1-2, Pro challenged that one objectively moral truth would prove objective morality. In his Ruse quote, it could follow that there are situations where 2+2=5, and conceivably where the heinous act committed to a child is indeed not "wrong". If it were something that were not possible in the first place, it wouldn't be morally wrong. It simply being a possibility is enough to turn it into a moral truth? What if it were required by every being in order to survive? Is it then objectively wrong? The only way we can label it objectively wrong is to first have an opinion on it. This can be further enforced by emotion. You can convince yourself that it must be objectively wrong because you do not want to consider a situation where it would be good. But not being wrong, does not make something right. Not being bad, does not make something good. In P1-3, Pro quotes W. L. Craig regarding the gradual discovery of moral values not precluding their objectivity. What objectivity? If you desire to believe morals are objective, than so be it. What you chose to believe, or what your opinion is, has no bearing on what we can prove or substantiate. We can only postulate and opine objective morality through desire and philosophy. It can only exist as true within our personal thoughts. The nature of something and our assumption about what that nature is are different things, as is assuming that something necessarily has a "nature" that must be considered in explanation. The ontological argument assumes a metaphysical importance to a phenomena that is explained through nature. I can provide a metaphysical response to why we have morals, but the importance is in how they came to be; which can be understood regardless why. The why in this case is only important to the person who posits a purpose or god. I can agree without contest to Pro in P2. Pro drew up a comparison between the objectivity of scientific knowledge to that of morals. Science is a process of discovery. No truth is assumed to the absolute, even if assumed to exist. These scientific truths apply to the universe, our morality does not. Whether we think something is a morally corrupt behavior has no impact, aside from our perceived sense of right and wrong. Disagreeing in science can result in one being right, and one possibly being wrong. Disagreeing in a moral arena can lead to two different ideas of what is true. It is an illogical comparison. Pro is not interested in what is simple, but rather what is true. Lets look at Occam's Razor. 'Among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. ' Pros arguments may indeed work, but that does not make them more true. He presents a complicated argument to "prove" objective morality, which "proves" the existence of god, which is naturally the Christian god because that has a solid foundation. Even if this seemingly explains morality, it further complicates the problem. Pro further states that: "God's nature. .. is the paradigm of moral goodness, and therefore is a perfect source for grounding objective moral values. " The problem I have with this is "God's nature" is entirely left to assumptions. You must assume the sources are reliable, you must assume further that the sources are accurate, you must assume the sources are correct, you must then interpret which parts actually explain this god's nature. So every bit of this moral grounding is dependent on opinion, assumption, and faith. My argument was meant to indicate that whether you start with morality or end with god, or start with god and end with morality it makes no difference. It is circular, and you cannot seemingly have one without the other. Therefore, one cannot prove the other. And finally. .. William Lane Craig wrote, in a response to a question posted, on reasonablefaith: "I'm convinced that keeping the distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology clear is the most important task in formulating and defending a moral argument for god's existence of the type I defend. " [1] Is it apparent that even Craig sees a weakness in his argument? Craig, in the same response, said "The salient point is that God"s commands constitute our moral duties. That is a claim of moral ontology. How we come to know our moral duties is a matter of moral epistemology and is irrelevant to the argument. " [1] This is incorrect. You cannot make an ontological claim and ignore the epistemology. He avoids the epistemology to his ontological claim that "God's commands constitute our moral duties. " But how is that known? How is it justified? So basically, without justification it cannot be used to root moral values to god, or used to prove the existence of god. This is what Pro has attempted to do, and therefore pros conclusion is refuted even without direct refutation of P1 or P2. SOURCES: (1) . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... I hope this is understandable after my limit shortening.