Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise (+).

I'm going to respond to my opponent's conclusion because I find it much easier to follow and more concise than the rest of his arguments. Then, I shall return and address any missed points. As this may be a long post, I shall try to be clear and concise as well. My opponent contends that: 1) I have not substantiated the use of "alternative morality." 2) I have contradicted the resolution. 3) Appeal to morality outside of the Bible is not within the bounds of the resolution. My apologies for addressing these points out of order, but they do not fit chronologically in the order above... ******************************** 3) Appeal to morality apart from the Bible. This argument is actually quite short. God is not laying the groundwork for morality in the Bible. In fact, when considered in light of what the majority of people consider to be "morals," much of what God lays out or endorses in the Bible is in fact immoral. What God is doing is laying the rules for how people should behave if they are going to receive any sort of reward from him. If you ask a Christian or Jew what the various rules in the Bible are, they will respond that those instances where God or Jesus hand out rules are instances of what one must to do be saved, not what one must do to live a moral life. In many cases, the two are the same. However, the purpose of the rules is so that the people follow the Deity. If it were morality, literally billions of people would be living an immoral life in Asia for not following God's rules. My opponent will no doubt argue that you follow God by living the moral life outlined by the rules in the Bible. However, leading a moral life is a mere side effect of following God's teachings... and sometimes, when one follows the acts he endorses, one would live an IMMORAL life. 1) On the use of "alternative morality." I put "alternative morality" in quotes because there really is only one morality. As I stated above, the Bible is a collection of God's rules, not morality. Where, then, does morality come from? There are two options to answer this question - sentimentalism and rationalism. A sentimentalist viewpoint holds morality to be the collection of rules and norms that, when violated, give rise to feelings of severe approbation and other negative emotions according to some emotional trigger latent in our perception of the act (Hume, Nichols). A moral "law" under this viewpoint would be a regulation that prevents one from transgressing against a "harm norm" - in other words, there are certain societal norms that carry extra weight to them. For example farting at the dinner table is disgusting, but may be acceptable in some cultures or situations. Wanton murder is never acceptable in ANY cultures or situations. Thus, a sentimentalist would consider "No wanton murder" to be a moral "law." A rationalist approach holds that morality is a set of rules and norms that adheres to the principle that one should act only as though their actions would be an acceptable universal law. The groundwork for what is acceptable may be rooted in things like evolutionary benefit from certain altruistic behaviors, cognitive thought about utility, or even simple rational consideration of what constitutes a good will (Kant, Joyce). A moral "law" under this viewpoint would be a maxim that would be universally applicable without contradicting its own ends, using people as a means to an end, or disrespecting the autonomy of individual's reason. For example, the act of farting is, at some times and places, appropriate (or even necessary!). If it were a universal maxim that farting was inappropriate, this would contradict the subjective consideration of the times and places where it WAS appropriate. However, wanton murder is NEVER acceptable, and thus, making "no wanton murder" a universal maxim would yield an acceptable moral "law." Thus, one can clearly see multiple ways to form a sense of morality without the use of God, or an appeal to ANY authority. Indeed, morality is authority-independent. If you ask even a stout Christian (this study was done with Amish Children) to consider if God made no law concerning harming others, over 80% said it was still morally wrong to harm others (Nichols). The numbers stayed the same or CLIMBED in a similar study done by Joyce wherein the situation was that God had made a rule that it was acceptable to harm others. Lastly, even if one considers the Bible to lay out the only moral framework, one could still use the terms of that framework to analyze God's actions and determine their morality. My opponent may argue that the Bible states that "you shall not put the Lord your God to the test," but I ask that the reader consider the action in the abstract - i.e. "X murdered babies", instead of "God murdered babies." In any event, he is not my god, and therefore, I need not abide by the above rule. 2) The argument that I have contradicted the resolution. This argument is somewhat spurious. One of us has indeed contradicted the resolution. However, who that is will be up to the voters. Consider: 1 - Assume the Bible is correct. 2 - The Bible states that God has committed X, Y, & Z, which are morally reprehensible acts. 3 - The Bible states that God s moral and deserving of praise. Thus, one can see that premises 2 and 3 cannot BOTH be correct. Therefore, either the PRO or CON side of this debate is in contradiction of the resolution by violation of "Given the Bible" or "God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise." ***************************** My opponent argues that: 1. The Bible is Correct 2. The Bible is the Word of God. 3. The Bible states God is Moral. 4. Therefore, God is Moral. One can easily see the circularity of this reasoning. It is exactly as though God is sitting as judge and jury in his own trial if one accepts this heinously circular method of reasoning. Also consider the reason my opponent considers God moral. It follows as such: 1. The Bible is Correct. 2. The Bible has factual claims about acts perpetrated by God. 3. These actions would be considered immoral. 4. Various Biblical characters (Samuel, David, Solomon, etc...) are of the opinion that God is Moral. 5. Therefore, based on their opinion, and ignoring factual claims, God is moral. One can see that this a poor argument indeed. ****************************** To conclude: I have shown that morality is authority-independent and therefore cannot come from God. Thus, the Bible is laying out God's preferential characteristics in his followers, not morality. Consider - if God held that raping babies was moral, it would STILL be immoral to rape babies. It would be a very strange conception of morality indeed where a raping babies would be ok because God said so. Even ignoring the authority independence of morality, God's own rules state what would be moral in my opponent's opinion. However, God violates even these rules. Consider: 1. The Bible is Correct. 2. Moral reasoning AND the Bible state that murder is wrong. 3. God murdered babies in Egypt (or ordered the "Angel of Death" to do so). 4. Therefore, God has committed morally repugnant acts. 5. Therefore, God is undeserving of praise. ************************ Throughout this debate, my opponent's main contention has been that the Bible states that God is moral. I have shown numerous times that not only is that the opinion of Biblical characters and not a factual claim, but that the Bible and God are not the arbiters of morality. With this in mind, I ask the reader to consider again: Is murdering babies wrong, even if the murderer is God? OR Is committing immoral action X wrong, even if the actor is God? In the Bible verses I have referenced above, the answer should be a resounding YES, and a vote for Pro. ******************************* Looking forward to the next round. (By the way... only 73 characters