If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

Observation:(1) This is not a debate about how one comes to know why something is right or wrong (epistemology). This is a debate about the foundations on which objective moral values rely (moral ontology). Thus, it must be understood that one does not need to believe in God in order to be moral. Additionally, I am not here to discuss the antecedent of the conditional, which is the question of God’s existence. It may be the case that God does not exist, in which case objective moral values (OMV) do not exist. I will therefore make the following assumption: God does not exist. (2) My opponent must present a case for how OMV can exist in the absence of God. The resolution is “If God does not exist, OMV do not exist,” which means he must negate and say that OMV can exist without God. It is not enough to refute my argument; it may be the case that my side is still true. In order to show a conclusion to be false, it is not enough to refute an argument. An independent argument against the claim needs to be put forth. 1.EvolutionEvolution by natural selection and random mutation is a fact, according to which adaptations are selected for their survival benefit and not necessarily for truth. Since this is an ontological question, it becomes inexplicable how something can really be called right and wrong if the only reason for which morality exists stems from a blind process that is not concerned with truth. On evolution, there is no objective right and wrong since the morality with which society functions is either (1) based on survival advantage, which is not necessarily true or (2) based on societal consensus, which is, by definition, subjective. Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy at Florida State University furthers:“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . .Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory” [1]That some things, like murder, have become taboo because of reciprocity does nothing to explain why murder is really wrong, and the foundations on which one can base such a claim. Moreover, my opponent must answer the fact that if we were to rerun evolution it may well be the case that different sentient, rational beings might have evolved with a different set of moral values, in which case these values are not objective2. SpeciesismOn atheism, there is no objective meaning or “specialness” of homo sapiens. We will eventually go on to die like all other animals. To claim that our morality is somehow objective is to be guilty of speciesism since there is no way to claim that our evolved morality is superior to the evolved morality of other sentient creatures on our planet. Or consider the following thought experiment: suppose there exist humanoids of superior intelligence, such that the difference between our intelligence and their intelligence is the same as between us and cows, on another planet. They come to earth with the moral assumption that eating for survival is not immoral. It turns out they like our flesh. Why are we right and they are wrong? William Lane Craig furthers:“But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.” [2]But we all know that speciesism, or the unjustified bias in favor of one’s own species, is by definition subjective. Now, some might say that rational beings like homo sapiens and the humanoids mentioned have moral worth because they have the property of being persons. However, this does nothing to justify why personhood should be considered as something that has objective value, that is, independent of whether we think its valuable or not. 3. Absurdity of Condemnation and Societal ConsensusOn atheism, how can something be condemned as being truly wrong? Note, not something that is undesirable, or something that we do not like, but how can someone claim that doing X is wrong even if everyone thought doing X was good. Take the holocaust, for example. National Socialist Germany condemned murder and punished it. They defined it in a way that suited their ideology. They therefore had a coherent, internal framework on which to base THEIR ethic. Of course, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. were not included as things which have moral worth, and were therefore not protected. Suppose Hitler won the war and was able to kill everyone who disagreed with his position. Now societal consensus dictates that killing Jews is good. What basis do we have to claim that that is wrong, considering everyone thinks that it is right? If God is not, the morality with which society functions is purely based on consensus, and if the consensus says that X is good, then X will be treated as good. But this is subjective illusory. Also, please answer this: are you a determinist?[1] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-9. (CITED BY WILLIAM CRAIG)[2] Craig, William Lane. "Can We Be Good Withough God?". http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;