God Is Necessary For Morality

1. My point was that you could not use this arguement to porove the existence of God. However, it is also simply false. Objective morals, by you own definition, exist independent of a mind, and since God is a mind they must exist independent of him. 2. Pro has again, mis represented what i was saying. Evolution explains human morality, not objective morality. As i pointed out before, my explanation for objective morality was "With or without a God, every action, or series of actions, will create a certain (possibly negative) amount of good. With or without a God, there will be an action, or series of actions, that will create the most good. That action, or series of actions, is the objectively moral one." (this is what i wanted a clear counter argument for) 3. As i have already established, free will exists for all relevant purposes. (C) was saying that because free will does not exist morality does not exist. in response to your new phrasing "our moral choices have no moral value or significance in an atheistic universe." i think i have already countered this several times. Every intelligent mind has an amount of happiness. our actions affect this amount of happiness. Therefore there is an action that would result in the highest level of happines. This is the moral action. 4. re-read the first sentence in my argument "again you confuse my explanation for human morality with my explanation for objective morality." 5. So you are saying that something is wrong because you will be punished for it? Then the holocaust would be very moral. People weren't punished for supporting it, and were punished for fighting against it. going back to the agreed definition of morality "actions or series of actions that result in the most good" we can see that morals can exist without punishment. Me raping some one would clearly result in less good than my not raping her, therefore it is amoral. It is not amoral because i will get arrested. 6. I agree evolution can not explain objective morality, my explanation for objective morality can. My point was that, you were saying that because my explanation failed yours must be correct, and that is a clear example of an argument from ignorance. 7. Yes i did, and a also asked for a clear rebuttal of this explanation (although my request was in the last paragraph, not the same place) 8. my explanation of morality was based on avoiding suffering, therefore any entity that posses suffering contains a moral value. therefore humans have a moral value. You do however raise a good point, my definition of morality should be modified to include intent. 9. OUR moral obligations our base on human morality, not absolute morality, and therefore come from evolution. 10. again my definition of morality is based solely on the results an action has, the better the results the more moral, punishment never entered the equation. 11. heres the argument we've been fencing around. You're right, you have said this. I will grant that human morality is based in selfishness. However, as i have stated many times before human morality is not objective morality. The argument i asked you to counter was my explanation for objective morality, which is: "With or without a God, every action, or series of actions, will create a certain (possibly negative) amount of good. With or without a God, there will be an action, or series of actions, that will create the most good. That action, or series of actions, is the objectively moral one." I can find one place where pro even acknowledges my explanation for objective morality (round 3, #7) and here he simply quoted it and didn't even attempt to refute it, despite my clear request to do so. Instead he continually mis-represents my explanation of human morality with an explanation of objective morality despite being corrected on the subject.