God is the Best Explanation for Morality

We're now at the final round of arguments. I'd like to thank CA for participating in this debate. Voters, please vote on the basis of who argued their case the best, and not on your own views. Let me now close with a response to CA, and some final considerations. Premise 1 There isn't much to respond to here, CA claimed that my admission that God isn't the only possible explanation for morality renders it faulty. On the contrary, it does no such thing. Recall my earlier response, which CA seems to have neglected: Simply because there are competing explanations to a position doesn't mean that any one explanation can't be correct. If you admit that there are other explanations for objective morality, then your whole argument falls apart, as your argument is stated in a way to where objective morality can not exist without god. Suppose that one day, I come home to discover that my television is stolen. Furthermore, I discover that a wallet in the ground which contains the driver's license of Bob, and suppose further that upon checking the records, Bob has been twice convicted of grand larceny. From this I craft a logical argument that Bob probably stole my television. Now, it's possible that the TV just mysteriously vanished, that the mailman stole it, that the license and records were planted, etc. .. But simply because other explanations are possible doesn't mean that my explanation can't be true or that it can't be the best. The same with theistic morality. Yes, there may be competing explanations as to the grounding of morality, but that does not in any way imply that my argument fails. Remember once again that the proposition being debated is that God is the best explanation of morality. Once again, simply because you have multiple competing explanations doesn't mean that only one explanation can't be valid, nor am I affirming that more than one explanation is valid. Rather, my argument is that theism is the best explanation for morality, given all other competing explanations. That something is an explanation doesn't automatically make it a true explanation -- it has to be argued for. Premise 2CA argues that I have not proven that objective morality exists, yet I have failed to see an adequate response given to the arguments I presented in my opening post. He says that there is nothing implausible about his position, but let's refer back to what I said in my last response:Explanatory power: Relativism does not explain moral progress, moral judgments or moral communication. It may explain why cultures hold different moral views, but theism offers a better explanation, for it affirms the reality of moral progress in cultural views of morality. Under relativism, progess is impossible, since there is no standard. Plausibility: Nothing much to respond to. CA only asserted that it was more plausible without justifying it. Less Ad-Hoc: See next response. Accord with Already Accepted Beliefs: Relativism does not satisfy this criteria adequately, for it requires us to many commonsense beliefs, such as "Humans have equal diginity," "The Holocaust was wrong," "Torturing babies for fun is wrong. " Nor does it accord with our beliefs in moral progress. This, in turn, makes relatiism more ad hoc, since it does not explain the data, but rather explains it away. Overall, relativism lacks comparative superiority. He also argues that I still bear the burden of proof, yet he utterly fails to engage with the arguments outlined in my previous post. "Also of consideration in determining the burden of proof is who advances the more plausible claim. Suppose I claim that the external world exists. The burden of proof is not on me to prove this, even though I may have made the claim. Rather, it's on the skeptic who wishes to deny this (By positing that we are, say, brains in a vat) who shoulders the burden of proof. " Applied to the second premise, the burden of proof is on CA because his position lacks plausibility, for it entails that statements such as "Murder is wrong," "Slavery is wrong," "Charity work is good," etc. .. . are neither true or false. Human Dignity and Equality CA has revealed that he does not believe in human equality or objective morality, rendering his position more implausible. He may choose to bite the bullet, but such a stance is obviously not the best explanation. It does not account for the fact that we consider moral progress to be real, moral judgements to be meaningful, and moral communication to be possible. Nor can CA complain about sex-slavery, the Holocaust, or a host of other human rights violations. However, he has a response to that. He argues, "To say that because I do not believe in an objective morality, that means that I can't complain against things that I personally find abhorrent is rather asinine. I am fully capable of adopting a moral stance without being pretentious about it, and claiming that it is objectively true. "Despite his protestings, if he does not adopt an objective moral framework, then he has no grounds to complain against things he finds abhorrent. On what grounds can he say that the Holocaust was immoral? On what grounds can he claim that it is wrong to torture babies for fun? There is nothing to be found on a naturalstic scenario which would possibly justify these claims. Of course, he can still make the judgments, but they lack substantive content from his worldview. If he wishes for them to in fact be meaningful, then he must borrow capital from theism. He ends by declaring morality an "absurdity," but once again he provides no argument for this. The Best ExplanationCA fails to engage with my argument at all, and thus no response is warranted here. Moreover, I have already argued that human experience, despite its subjectivity, provides an accurate guide to how the world really is. His final assertion therefore fails. ConclusionCA has failed to defend his points.