Objective Moral Values and Duties must be grounded in God

"But I must ask the question, who is to decide how to reason?" No person can decide what is reasonable and what is not. Reason is merely a way to derive further conclusions from reality: it consists of a grouping of truths (how one derives these truths has already been explained) from which one can piece together new truths (not in the sense that the truths are "created", just that the various pieces were put together for the first time). Everything is already there; one can find everything about the universe given unlimited time and the bedrock of all truths. I definitely do not believe that the Nazi's are reasonable in any way. What may seem reasonable at first glance could very well be unreasonable. For instance, to those without knowledge of our solar system outside of that which one can gain from casually looking at the sky, the Sun could appear to be rotating around the Earth. Obviously, we know that this is false. However, people believed that it was a perfectly sound explanation for the motion of the star. The Sun cannot orbit around the Earth and the Earth orbit around the sun at the same time. It must be one or the other. One theory must be wrong. If, for example, Objectivism clashes with the philosophy of the Nazi's, they cannot both be right. In fact, if two belief systems differed just slightly in one aspect but were the same in all others, one would still have to be wrong. They could both be wrong, of course, but the fact that we might not have the "correct" moral system at this time does not change the fact that there is one. If you propose that no answer is correct, then that means that logic is incorrect. This would still allow me to arbitrarily impose my will and make logic valid again, which is rather pointless when debating. Thus, logic has to be considered to be valid in any arguments presented. "A Christian might say that an unconditional ought is "love your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" - always. It is not subject to circumstance." Ah, but is there not a hidden circumstance in that example? Does it not rely on reality being what it is? If reality was different, could the "ought" not change? "How can reality so-construed be properly said to judge anything? {...} akin to humanity's sociobiologically evolved belief in invisible nonphysical deities?" Reality can "judge" (with "judge" referring to applying moral status to an action) because it sets the boundaries. Only one reality exists, with nothing being able to go against the rules of that reality. It allows us to reason, as reason is just the method by which reality can be understood. When one reasons, one only "uncovers" truths. These truths were true without being found. Thus, they are not subject to human manipulation (much in the same way that a vision of a mirage in a desert does not change the actual desert), and are objectively correct. "Without those two qualities, morality is either meaningless, or pointless." Why must there be a punishment for immoral actions for the actions themselves to be immoral? A quick note: I didn't specifically single out points that I felt I had addressed earlier in the round. Please keep this in mind as you're reading. See you next round!