Without God there can be no absolute morals.

Without God there can be no absolute morality. This statement says nothing about what there would be if there was a God. I have my own objections to objective morality in a world with God. If there is a God well then maybe there could be some form of objective morality. After all God simplifies many problems. Life has a meaning with God, There would be an absolute enforcer with God, God could make himself known to us or as the Christians put it reveal the natural law to everyone. I think all of these things are ridiculous because they rely on the premise of God's existing. The resolution is asking everyone to suppose there is no God, and then my argument is that there can be no absolute morality in this world. Whether there can be an absolute morality in a world without God is a matter of theology. And I will let the Christians decide what they want to believe about their own god. *Note when I say Christians I potentially mean any believer, but Christianity is the only religion I know well enough to talk about. I would be uncomfortable assuming things to be true of any other religion. I would like to note that the opposition has yet to give any evidence of an absolute morality. The closest he came to this was his appeal to emotion about the pedophile, but an emotion even if it is shared by everyone still is not an absolute moral. One day a person could still come along and say that Pedophilia is good. And there could be no way to show that he is wrong except by appealing to some stronger value he has. If there is no God then we live in an uncaring universe with no absolute goal or moral code to achieve that goal. As far as we know the universe doesn't know or care that we are here. This statement itself is personifying it too much. for a crystal to break another crystal. Or a lion to hunt a gazelle. The only difference with people is that we are complex enough structures that we care what happens to us. Care about other people if you want to, but to say that it is wrong to not care about other people is really just revealing what you think about it. There is no absolute authority. There may be punishment for an action, or there may not be. The world is absurd like that. An appeal to human nature for morality is still just a bunch of people agreeing that they don't like something. Now I will do the Line by line Numbering will be based on spaces b/w paragraphs 1.My point was that if you're goal is to help yourself you are acting egoistically whether it helps other people or not. The difference between egoism and utilitarianism is when you make a decision that hurts your self interest. 2.My egoism is non normative. I would suggest that other people be egoistic, but I don't make any claim that egoism is right unless you can call good for you right. The egoism I support is only for me. It is all about me when it comes to egoism. If someone else wants to be egoistic I say go for it. My egoism doesn't require anything to be absolute because there are no absolutes. An absolute normative ethical egoism is a contradiction in itself. My position is there is no God and there are no absolute morals. 3.Egoism can't be absolutely right, it is subjective by nature. 4.I will take the assumption with you that the world is real. The people you see are still objects to you. But you and PERHAPS a god or some other nonphysical being can be real to you like you are. You cannot feel another person's emotions or think their thoughts. The only connection your minds have to each other is through sense data by means of the world. They are objects of your perception like everything else as complex as they may be. Therefore you may chose to care about them or you may not but there is no obligation deemed to us by the universe to treat other people well. 5.I'm not arguing for God but against morality. Even though many Christians make this argument too. 6.Because God is made up and doesn't have to follow the laws of physics, or logic. I see the results of your perspective and I do assume you have a perspective but you are still an object in my world. You can like other people and have friends without thinking that there is some absolute duty you have to them. Are you putting in quotations just for the votes, because that was the most unwarranted argument ever. "depend on other humans" Quotes should articulate your point well or have some authority in the field. What is the difference between our lives and our interactions linking together? 7.This is my point. 8.Nonexistence to you means they don't have thoughts in your mind. You don't feel their emotions they are objects in the world that you can perceive just like a rock or a dog or a computer. The difference lies in the complexity. They shouldn't there are no absolute morals if there is no God. The resolution does not imply that if there was a God that there would be absolute morality. A lack of God is sufficient for a lack of absolute morality but not necessary for it. It is a basic if then logical argument. Saying that the results of something being believed would be bad is not a refutation of whether it is correct. I obey laws only if it is beneficial for me to do so. 9.I am not arguing that God is more real. The concept is nonsense to me. But maybe if a God existed he could get in your head, that is after all what prayer is supposed to be. You and God could feel the same things and think the same thoughts. Humans have a basic disconnect from each other but a God may not. 10.If a Chinese boy dies and you don't know about it does it affect you? No. Assuming there is no butterfly affect. If reality is the world as you experience it then yes it does make it less real. If you had to feel their pain then I would say don't let them die. But if you get off scot free then you may as well buy the cheaper shoes. 11.My argument is that there is no absolute value to judge morality by. If "absolute morals can't exist even with a God" then the resolution is true and there are no absolute morals. 12.This would be a good question for a theologian or a believer. All I am saying is that made up rules are game changers so I don't have a position when it comes to a universe with a God. 13.Well selfishness can be good for you but it can't be morally right in an absolute way. It depends on what you value. 14.In the world whoever has the most power wins out. I am advocating not saying either is objectively right. I wouldn't like a pedophile, but he has to make his own choices. Societies can make theirs too like the death penalty or jail. If you were the murderer it would make sense to side with yourself. 15.I was only responding to your arguments. The forced perspective I thought went un challenged, unless you think you don't have to feel your emotions or experience your life, but not other peoples. 16.What makes it moral. I believe I said when I say morality I means specifically altruistic morals or duty morals not Aristotelian relative morals in my opening. 17.Yah but you can't make someone look outside themselves, and if they would rather not there is no argument that could convince them except an emotional one. Further any human made system is not objective it is still seen through a human lenses and can be rejected without consequence potentially. 18.Science is seen through a perspective, it explains the world I experience but it cannot make another person as real to me as I am myself. You are trying to look from outside of your perspective which is impossible and pointless. 19.Yes circumstantial morality or the guise of it can be useful. You don't have to believe there is a right thing to do in order to do something that other people say is the right thing to do. 20.That is why I don't believe in absolute morals. 21 is in comments