Objective Moral Values and Duties Show that God Exists

1. Premise one We do not agree. I haven't argued with atheism I've argued with moral nihilism. We do not agree because, as I have stated, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Furthermore, they don't not exist because of a lack of god. They don't exist because morality was constructed by society to serve society. This is shown with the differing morals in different cultures due to a vast amount of reasons. Stop misrepresenting me Pro, I have never even stated atheism as an argument. Read my dang arguments. 2. Premise two By attempting to refute my appeal to emotion accusations, Pro reinforces my accusations. Your moral intuition is nothing but a product of the society you live in. You are influenced by your society in every way, most especially morally. This just goes to reinforce that morality was created by society and is only used to further society. As soon as society needs to do something to survive, morality will change in that society or it will perish. Example: Historically speaking, famine was a problem for some societies. In multiple cases wherein famine is extremely prevalent, cannibalism was adopted and moral in that society. This is because the society had to chose to change morals or die. They made the wise decision. The moral intuition argument by Pro fuels my argument. The law of contradiction does not prove that morality is intuitive innately. It only shows that we have adopted what our society deems wrong. If you go up to someone that has lived by themselves for their entire life and survived and somehow communicated to them unbiasedly what child molestation is, I have a hard time believing their intuition and instincts would be against reproduction. Sigh. I have never stated that social norms are what the society deems moral. Rape happens and is a norm in some communities in the US, doesn't mean that communities LOVES rape. This is just a blatant misrepresentation of my argument. In fact, the examples that you provided that shows what you think as immoral acts prove my argument. Hitler believed wholeheartedly that the human race was in danger of extinction by it's own hand. He wanted to make everyone the same to stop war and conflict and thus, saving the human race. He viewed this to be true. That is why he morally justified his slaughter of Jewish people. This is just proving my argument. I never stated that something should be punished. I just stated that that is what societies do and are in existence for. Yes, it isn't inherently right or wrong to protect Jews, but I never stated or argued that it was subjectively wrong. I have only been speaking on objective morality and why it is non-existent. I used subjective morality to explain why this is, but not to condemn what I believe to be right or wrong. Implied that only having one argument is bad, which is a logical fallacy. My one argument destroys the argument with which your position stands on. "He has said that since different societies come up with different moral systems, that therefore there is no set of objective moral values and duties." Way to oversimplify my argument. Read my dang arguments. I argued that this was true and then I explained why. Learn how to debate. He then brings up science, which has literally no impact on morality in my interpretation whatsoever, to try and disprove me. He states that if my thinking is true then the objective reality of the natural world is untrue. What? Never have I claimed this and pro never showed why the continuation of my line of thinking would result in this, he just stated that it would. Either way, this is the line-drawing fallacy. Just because the end result of the line is untrue doesn't mean the other parts of the line aren't. In this case, the end result isn't even what pro claims it to be. He claims that because this my argument doesn't support my conclusion... What? Even if I was arguing that the natural world isn't an objective reality, what does that have to do with my argument against objective MORALITY? Oh look, "because god" argument. You cannot academically point to god to prove your argument, look into credential authority. Furthermore, you cannot claim something about god and prove it because god. This is circular thinking. I could get into a whole argument about how god isn't love and how he advocates for so many horrific acts with pros reasoning, but that is irrelevant. You haven't proven that god is a credible source (he exists), that he has the authority on the issue (no one has authority in moral debate), or that he is completely objective. Pro claims that god is a necessary reality. Pro then states that his argument is not relevant to the debate but still goes on to argue it. "Only if such a being exists is there any objective standard in which objective moral values and duties can be rooted." That is what I stated in my first round. I stated that if it is possible it must be by another being other than humans. But I've shown it to be impossible. Oh look, more appeal to emotion. Pro complained that I stated that there is nothing inherently wrong with molestation. This is fact. Nothing completely objective tells us otherwise, only our society influenced "moral intuition." I have not advocating for the god dang molestation of children. I have not said that we should get rid of morality, this is in response of the "ask which you are willing to adopt" statement. Plus, anyone with any logic will see that my arguments are far superior and thus more persuasive than Pro's. You have not proven any objective source that shows there is a morally superior standard. You have not shown the objective moral values and duties that you claim your god gave you. You haven't shown any sign of logical thinking in regards to morality, only the product of indoctrination and being subservient. Understand my arguments before you try to debate them. Understand debate and beginners fallacy before you debate. Understand what makes a credible source and a crud source. These are my critiques and advice for Pro.