The Moral Argument is Not Sound

What's the Problem? You assume OM is not applied to if you do not believe in God. It is not a option if you do not believe in God or recognize God means you do not have OM. God has grounded morality and whether or not we accept that OM, it does exist. Philosophers have by the multitude expressed OM since philosophy on morality began. Today we exhibit their work in our liberty and freedom. Theism has established the standard from faith in God of OM (including SM.)Subjective morality- In its most general form, the argument from moral normativity is that: Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed. (Moral realism) Existence of God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives. The arguments then propose that only the existence of God as conceived could support the existence of moral order in the world. Therefore, God must exist. I. Epistemological Argument for Ontological Grounding {1: If we are warranted in believing x exists, then we are warranted in believing that x has an ontological grounding in reality.} {2: We are warranted in believing OM exists.} {3: Therefore, we are warranted in believing OM has an ontological grounding in reality.} I agree to my opponents display here. P1 is upon supernatural means (metaphysical), as my opponent said 'something isn't nothing!' Theist have a idea what P1 is so my opponent is wrong. It is the atheist who do not recognize Him or they could know OM and SM more clearly. My opponent appears to be hinting that because atheists do not recognize God or have the same morals as theist that, that somehow defies P1 or P2. No one must believe in God to know we have OM. We all have a simple agreement on what is good and what is wrong. We tend to drift in between and apply SM on ourselves. Some apply SM for the reasons of religious oaths. This argument is not circular because even though atheist do not want to admit God they are still subject to OM. II. Non-Reductive Ethical Naturalism (NREN) Moral Values My opponent says, "So the question is, do properties like suffering and happiness objectively exist? Of course." I agree that suffering and happiness objectively exist also. I do not understand why it can not?> If belief that the natural is all that exists, is correct, then life must be regarded as a meaningless accident and morality cannot be understood as anything meaningful. Despite that atheist still act as if morality is meaningful, leading to a belief that morality is normative, or holds objective truth. Moral Duties (1) Meaning of Ought: I concur with my opponent on his description of 'ought.' (2) Practical Oughts: I, again, agree with my opponent. You have practical oughts. Whatever we are obliged to do must be possible, and achieving the perfect good of both happiness and moral virtue is only possible if a natural moral order exists. (3) Moral Oughts: My opponent is dodging and weaving around accepting God. My opponent can not say that 95% of people do not have similar moral values, can he? Where do these values come from? OM is universal of course. We today see things immoral that was moral years ago. People today have built moral system's that are Subjective morality. My opponent confuses the two. I will state again that OM is grounded by God to all. Atheist can be very moral people and never recognize God. Though this does not mean that God does not exist nor OM. I do understand my opponent wants to divide theist and atheist by applying we all have different sets moral but that is untrue. All people have the same basic moral value. That was grounded by God. My opponent can not deny that the same basic moral values from yesterday are not present today. We can take this into many topics but people universally agree, you do not murder, nor steal, nor lie. There possibly many more. One never has to be theistic to agree on OM. Atheist and theist are not that different morally. If a person chooses to be very moral than they will be. You do not need to be a theist to display wonderful character, charity and duty. This is very easy to see and does not conflict with OM at all. My opponent has shown a very good description of how people should act morally but it really hasn't conflicted OM. It is not within the power of humans to bring the summum bonum about, because we cannot ensure that virtue always leads to happiness. Conclusion I think my opponent should show why his product does conflict with OM. Resolved OM exist and is not in conflict with my opponents ATF. Negated. Thanks back to Pro. References: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.existence-of-god.com...