Is The Biblical God Morally Better Than Humans

Let"s get back to trying to answer the question that is the title of this debate. I tried to explain how my opponent"s atheism does not allow him to properly answer this question. Did I do a good job explain that? I"ll leave that up to the voters to decide. Let"s assume that I did a good job explaining how atheism cannot answer the question in which this debate is based on. Does that necessarily prove that God"s morals are better than those of humans? Not really. In order for me to prove that God"s morals are better than those of humans, the only logical thing I can do now is prove that God is indeed the absolute moral standard because if He truly is, that would mean that He Himself is the standard in which all morals are based. Imagine for a second that morals were a tangible item. It would be safe to assume that whoever invented this item would know everything there is to know about it. Since morality varies from culture to culture, I think it would be safe to assume that humans do not know everything there is about morality, otherwise we would all be on one moral accord but we"re not. Let me explain. Think about the light bulb. Since the light bulb was invented by a human (Thomas Edison) and a human explained how it works, humans all over the world are in universal agreement with the proper use of the light bulb. The same goes for vehicles, tools, and anything else that humans invented. Since morals vary from culture to culture, this means that humans are not in universal agreement when it comes to morality and if humans are not in universal agreement, then how can one conclude that humans indeed invented the concept of morality? When was the last time a human invented something but no one could agree on what the invention is used for and the inventor could not explain in detail what it does? If people did not invent morality, then how can anyone say that our morals are better than the one who created them? We recognize the fact that morals exist but society usually influences one"s morals. Although society may influence one"s morals, that doesn"t mean society invented morality or those particular morals are even correct. In culture (A) it is morally okay to torture babies for fun but in culture (B) such an act is deemed immoral. Who is right and wrong in this regard? If you agree with culture A or B then the question becomes why? How does one justify their moral response? In order to justify one"s moral response, by default an objective moral standard is needed. Since morals are not part of human DNA (meaning that there"s no biological code for morality) that means that morals are an immaterial concept. The question then becomes, where did this moral concept, or moral compass, come from? For those who believe in Darwinian evolution, evolution doesn"t prove that morals "evolved" from our biological molecular structure. Morals are an immaterial product of the mind. How did something that is immaterial "evolve" from something material? That"s not scientifically possible but yet we can"t ignore the fact that morals indeed exist. Did humans invent morals? For the reason listed above I don"t see how that"s possible. Since humans recognize morality does indeed exist but no humans invented morality, the only logical conclusion is that morality was given to humanity by someone who knows everything there is to know about morality and that someone is who we would call god (in the noun sense of the word). If God is the author of the human moral compass, then would it not be logical to conclude that He would know everything there is to know about the moral compass He gave us? If God invented the moral compass then it should be safe to assume that God based the moral compass on His own moral character. If God based the moral compass on His own moral character, then that would mean God is the absolute moral standard in which all human morality is based on. If God is the absolute moral standard, then by default God can do no wrong. I"m not saying God is arbitrary in His decision making, He"s not. I"m saying that God is the very definition of what good is since He invented good and therefore doing wrong is not in His character. If God can do no wrong but in the Bible it appears that He"s doing something that we humans would deem morally wrong, we would have to give God the benefit of the doubt since by default God can do no wrong. It will be up to us humans to examine the Bible and other sources to determine whether or not God is truly in the wrong but all too often many people (believers and non-believers alike) do not take the time to get into the heart and soul of why God has done things in the Bible that we think are "immoral". The average person doesn"t take the time to see if God truly is in the wrong. We see something that we think is immoral than jump to the conclusion that God is a moral monster without asking or answering the who, what, where, why, when, and how. The average person has in their mind what they think God should be and should do and then judges the Biblical God by their preconceived notions and I think my opponent is guilty of this. My opponent said something in there rebuttal that I want to touch on. The following comes from https://carm.org... A big problem with atheism and morality I often receive complaints from atheists about the God of Christianity. They accuse him of being a monster and a moral tyrant. They just don't like him. Apparently there isn't enough room in the world for two moral judges: God and themselves. So, they want to dismiss God and judge him. Okay, so what gives them to right to judge God? Where is their standard from which they base their moral assertions about what is right and wrong? The problem is that they can't produce any objective standard. They only have their subjective opinions, and that is a problem--a big problem. Now, just because they have a dilemma on their hands about rationally and morally justifying any sort of standard of righteousness by which they can make moral judgments, it doesn't mean they are going to give up their moral self-righteousness (isn't that what it is?) when someone shows them the irrationality door and firmly escorts their rears through it. After all, when you get to play God and make yourself the moral standard of right and wrong, that is hard to give up. I'm sure there's some internal satisfaction that permeates the atheist's soul when declaring what is good and bad and then passing judgment on others. The problem is that no atheist I've encountered has been able to provide a rational justification for his moral judgments. Let's just take a look at their dilemma. You see, if an atheist wants to complain about the God of the Bible, that is his privilege. I will defend his right to have an opinion--even such a stupendously wrong one. But what logical argument can an atheist provide that would justify him saying that anything God does really is wrong? Think about it. The atheist could only have three possible options for the source of a moral standard: He can develop a moral standard out of his own opinions. He can adopt the moral standards of society. He can use a combination of his own opinions and the morals of society. Other than those three, I don't see any other options. So, let's take a look at them. Deriving morality from one's own opinions If an atheist wants to develop his moral standard based on his own opinions, then what justifies his opinions as being the right ones? His opinions are subjective--not objective. They are based on his opinions so why should we take his moral opinions seriously? And what right does he have to say that anyone else's moral position is right or wrong? Isn't their opinion on morals as valid as his? Furthermore, if he tried to say that anyone else's morals were wrong, then isn't he being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on his subjective opinions? These questions expose the problem of deriving morality from one's self. Deriving morality from society If we go with the second option where the atheist derives his morality from society, then what makes one society right and another wrong? Haven't societies been wrong before? Think of Nazi Germany or America in the 1800's regarding slavery. Furthermore, who's to say that in the future a new moral majority might condemn atheism as an ethical danger to society? Would they be right? How would you know? The point is that deriving morality from society doesn't mean it is correct. History has shown that to be the case. Many atheists respond to this criticism by saying that society is evolving and getting better morally. Okay, but that is just begging the question. In other words, they are saying society is getting better morally because we are evolving. Really? In other words, societies are getting better morally because societies say so? Deriving morality from opinions and society Finally, if the atheist uses his own opinions in combination with those of society, then he is subjectively deciding what he thinks is right and wrong in the society around him. He is judging society's morals and deciding which ones are right and wrong, which ultimately brings us back to the first problem where he's deriving morality from his own opinions. He's logically befuddled. So, the atheist doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones. Since he doesn't have any moral standing by which to make objective moral claims, then all he can say is that he doesn't like the God of Christianity. He can't say that the God of Christianity as found in the Bible is objectively morally wrong because he doesn't have an objective moral standard by which to make such a judgment. He only has a subjective opinion. If he then tries to impose his opinions on others, he then becomes guilty of arrogance and judgmentalism.