The moral argument is sound

Brute Facts And The Grounding Of MoralityMy opponent asserts that I have not shown that there are, in fact, any brute facts, and that brute facts are just part of a philosophical worldview. I agree. However, this ignores the burden of proof. Pro has to show that moral facts (assuming morality is objective) cannot be brute facts in order for him to meet the burden of proof on the first premise. He says that I may have a false view of reality, and I may not know what I think I know. The response to this is rather simple: Pro may have a false view of reality, and he may not know what he thinks he knows about morality. This holds for any worldview in context. The implication that his worldview is somehow exempt from this line of skepticism is nothing more than a special pleading fallacy.Pro then makes the claim that I just assume life can come from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, and that morality can come from amorality. However, Pro just assumes that life cannot come from non-life, intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, and that morality cannot come from amorality. He makes just as many assumptions. The problem is that Pro has the burden of proof to establish the conclusion (he started the debate, and never specified a shared burden), meaning that he has to show that all the things he asserting I assume can happen, cannot happen. This has not been accomplished.PGA then tries to attack my limited knowledge (which is an ad hominem). Either way, even with limited knowledge, it is not clear why Atheism cannot ground morality. Pro just presumes the superiority of his position throughout the debate without actually arguing for it sufficiently.He then quotes Bahnsen saying: "Facts without God would be brute facts. They would have no intelligible relation to one another. As such they could not be known by man." However, Pro has not shown how Bahnsen is correct (this is just a bare assertion fallacy on PGA's behalf). Facts without God could be grounded in the nature of existence itself, or in something else. Simply because a truth is not grounded in God, does not mean that it is a brute fact by default; that's a non-sequitur. Regardless, the idea that brute facts don't have any intelligible relation to one another is not warranted, just asserted. My opponent keeps endorsing the notion that God is the best explanation, but he ignores The Euthyphro Dilemma which entails that Morality cannot be grounded in God. Also, he says that without God morality would have to arise from a random, chance, non-thinking process, something without intent or purpose that is incapable of reason. No reason is given as to why something being mindless means it has to be random. I mean gravity for example isn't "random", it keeps my butt on the ground and this is consistent. It is mindless, and has no intent. Basically, my point here is that if it is mindless, that doesn't make it necessarily random. Something can have a function that can be carried out with the need for any intent or purpose at all. Morality needing to be grounded in God is imaginary, and Pro is presenting no reasons to believe this is the case, that are not based on logical fallacies. He simply presupposes his position, then tries to switch the burden of proof by asking me how his position could not be the case. Moral Relativism And LogicMy opponent keeps talking about Relativism in general, but this debate is about Moral Relativism specifically. There is no contradiction in it being objectively true, that morality is subjective. It would only be a contradiction if one was making the claim that every claim is not objectively true. I am not making this claim. Thus, this is just another one of Pro's many fallacious red herrings. Also, my opponent does not seem to grasp that there is nothing contradictory with these two statements:i) Abortion is subjectively immoral to society Aii) Abortion is not subjectively immoral to society bIt does not matter if two opposing societies have opposing views on morality, that in no way points to any sort of logical contradiction in the slightest. Two different societies having competing opinions does not violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, or the Law of Identity at all. The argument to the contrary from Pro is nothing less than embarrassing. It would only be contradictory if it was true that both:i) Abortion is objectively immoralii) Abortion is not objectively immoral However, Relativism deals with subjective morality, not objective morality. Thus, Pro is just straw-manning Moral Relativism by asserting there is this conjured up contradiction; there is no contradiction. So, just to clear up any confusion, Moral Relativism does not state that there are no objective facts. It just posits that action A is neither objectively morally good, or evil. Pro's claim that the Moral Relativist is committed to their being no objective facts is just outrageous. Either way, the fact that there are differences with regards to what is right and wrong are used as evidence for Moral Relativism; not against it. The fact that there are differences in how cultures view morality is commonly used in philosophy as support for Moral Relativism. Here are a couple of examples below:"Argument from cultural relativity(1) Different cultures hold different sets of moral values and no moral values are held throughout all cultures.(2) If different cultures hold different sets of moral values and no moral values are held throughout all cultures, then what is morally right and wrong is relative to culture.Therefore, (3) what is morally right and wrong is relative to culture.Argument from tolerance(1) Persons should be tolerant of the different values of other cultures.(2) The best explanation of the truth of (1) is moral relativism.Therefore, (3) what is morally right and wrong is relative to culture." [1]There obviously is no contradiction involving two contradictory objective truths pertaining to Moral Relativism. Grounding of Morality ContinuedPro claims that facts must be grounded in a mind, and they cannot be grounded in the nature of existence. However, this is just another one of Pro's unjustified bare assertions. While a mind may be needed to understand and utilize these facts, my opponent has still left us with zero reasons to assume a mind has to ground these facts. This is, once more, confusing moral epistemology with moral ontology. He also thinks that I think I can judge what is right or wrong. This is false. Some moral facts (assuming their are objective moral facts) are just self-evident (raping children for fun is bad), others are unknown and debated about (is abortion wrong?). But I am not judging what is right or wrong on my own. If moral facts are brute facts, then we can can know them or not know them; we wouldn't dictate what they were. This would hold even if objective morality was grounded in the nature of existence. We are left with no reason to think that a mind is necessary to ground morality. Morality could be grounded in the nature of existence itself. There is nothing logically or metaphysically impossible with this. Pro certainly hasn't ruled it out. Additionally, Pro says that when we speak of something good, we speak of something external that grounds it. However, this is just begging the question. I can just say that when we speak of good, we speak of nothing more than a brute fact that cannot be explained, it is just a fact that can be known. These arguments are just bare assertions, and not convincing in the slightest. Pro also hasn't shown why God has to exist (an omnibenevolent being by definition), instead of some evil being instead. Immorality is needed to contrast morality, however, morality is needed to contrast immorality! Pro has still left us without a reason to think that immorality isn't grounded in an evil being, with morality just being a necessary side effect, instead of God existing. The Mountain AnalogyAn objective standard can still change, thus my analogy still gets the desired point across. The standard of spelling the country above the United States entails that it must be spelled "Canada". Any other spelling of that country does not live up to this standard. This doesn't mean that we cannot change the name of the country, and change the standard. Regardless, even if there is a standard that must be changeless, why must it be a mind? Why can only a mind ground facts? Even if minds can only ground facts, who says that what the facts describe must be grounded in a mind? Pro has way to many unsupported hidden premises within his argumentation. ConclusionPro bare asserted that relations between brute facts would be non-intelligible. Even if it was true that relations between brute facts would be non-intelligible, it wouldn't follow that the brute facts themselves in relation to human beings would not be intelligible. Pro also argued that facts must be grounded in a mind, not in any nature. This was once more, a bare assertion. PGA has not shown why morality cannot be grounded in the nature of existence itself, instead of the mind of God, or the nature of God. My opponent just assumes his position is required. As far as logic and Moral Relativism are concerned, I think it should be crystal clear to the viewers of this debate that there is no contradiction. If abortion is subjectively immoral to Society A, but it is not subjectively immoral to Society B; this entails no contradiction at all. It should be self-evident that there would only be a contradiction if one posited it was both true that abortion was objectively immoral, and not objectively immoral. What is the punchline of this whole debate? Well, The Euthyphro Dilemma has been completely ignored! This argument shows that morality cannot truly be grounded in God. All of Pro's arguments fail; the resolution has not been established. Source [1] https://sites.google.com...