An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God

Over the course of this exchange of ideas, I will attempt to prove to Con and to the audience that an objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God in two ways. First, I will show that if God does in fact exist, then an objective moral code is able to exist. Second, I will show that if God does not exist, then an objective moral code can not exist. If I defend both of these contentions over the course of this argument, then by the end I will have satisfied the terms of the debate - "An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God" and by extension, I will have properly defended the Pro side of this idea.1. A theistic view of the universe has an answer for what is good and what is bad, while an atheistic view does notIn the monotheistic view of God (which is the one I defined in round 1), God is, by definition, the paradigm of goodness. Everything that he is is good in the universe, and everything that we are told that we should morally strive for is something that He embodies. It can also be said for this point that, under the monotheistic view of God (I will refer to Him a simply "God" for the remainder of the debate), humans have a code of laws given by this God which define what is good and what is bad for us. In an atheistic ideology, there is no such epitome of goodness to look towards when deciding what is ultimately good, regardless of human desire and internal moral compass. Desire and moral compass do not provide a basis for an objective moral code, i. e. , regardless of human thought, things are either good or bad. E. g. The mass murderings in Maoist China were objectively morally evil regardless of what Chairman Mao thought. In the Con's atheistic view of morals, there is no such "ultimate good" in the universe to which we can look in order to discern goodness. On a second note, in relation to my Pro point, there is no one who has given the human race a code of laws that are to be respected above all human law - a moral code that transcends human thought.2. In a theistic view, morals would be enforced by the justice of an afterlife. In an atheistic view, morals would not be enforced because no such afterlife exists. I posit that in order for a law to have meaning, it must be enforced or be morally righteous. However, since we are arguing about moral laws and there is no law greater than what is fundamentally right and wrong, the only condition for morals to be laws would be if the moral law was enforced (because morals are being called in to question, we can not rely on morals to determine whether or not moral laws are meaningful). On to this argument, I state that if God exists, then an objective moral law is enforced due to the justice of an afterlife. In simplest terms, doing things evil according to the moral law will merit absolute punishment, while doing good according to the moral law will merit absolute reward. This is enforcement of a law. If God does not exist however, then there is no justice concerning moral laws. I assume we can both agree that human laws do not cover moral laws since under the Third Reich, it would be just to put a Jew to death. We can also both agree that putting to death someone for nothing other than an ethnic or religious purpose is objectively morally wrong. If human laws do not cover an objective moral code since human laws do not always reward what is good and punish what is evil (in the sense of the mass murderings of Nazi Germany), and there is no greater power of justice since God does not exist, then there is no objective moral code. In other words, since we can (hopefully) both agree that what Hitler did to Jews was wrong and since he was not punished by normal human justice, then he was not punished at all (assuming God does not exist) and therefore did nothing wrong, since no law was enforced.3. A quick thought experimentIf I murdered a young child in cold blood for no reason other than to satisfy my sadistic desires, and I was not punished by human justice (meaning I got away with it), why would it have been wrong for me to murder that child? Ultimately, the law that says "Don't murder people" isn't a law since it was not enforceable. If I am going to die one day and cease to exist, the same as everyone else - Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, then why does what I do or do not do on earth matter?