Objective Moral Values and Duties must be grounded in God

When I was referring to "bedrock of all truths" above, in philosophical terms, I meant ontological grounding. As a necessary being, God can provide an objective source of moral values and duties. There must be a stopping point, an axiom upon which any analysis must be based. But the criterion for entry into the "club of Man" (namely, the ability to reason, in a certain way) is arbitrary. Sociopaths are logical, but their logic is different from that of most people; the Nazis were logical, but their logic was different from that of most people. Because of this difference, they are excluded from the club of Man. The logic these two groups use is different, but no less logical. If our moral rules can be summarized by A, and the Nazis had won WWII, we would all be operating according to a different logic (not-A). This is what I was driving at when I said that my opponent was begging the question. The logic underlying my opponent"s moral philosophy is contingent; the logic underlying mine (God) is necessary. In the next paragraph, my opponent states that two contradictory propositions cannot be derived from the same premise (axiom). This (the law of noncontradiction) is quite true. Two points should be brought up: first, moral decisions do not generally proceed from indisputable axioms. In a courtroom, contradictory moral verdicts are defended, based upon one body of evidence. Second, and more important, the dramatically different conclusions reached by our society, and that of the Nazis, or that of sociopaths, are dependant upon different propositions that each takes as axiomatic. We think hurting people is bad; sociopaths and Nazis disagree. While we think their disagreement is illogical, that is according to the standards of our logic. They would surely think our morality was illogical, according to the standards of their respective logics. These differences have no way to be arbitrated, absent God. My opponent next misunderstands my distinction between a condition and an unconditional ought. An unconditional ought still requires an ontological foundation - God. But the duty or value itself is not ordered towards reaching some exterior goal or end. It is independent of circumstances. This is not the case with a conditional ought. It is true that, given a map, one knows objectively in which direction to go if one wishes to get to California. The key question, however, is why should one wish in the first place to get to California? Rephrasing, if one wishes to gain access to the Club of Man, one should do certain things, and avoid others. But why should one wish to gain access to the Club of Man? Why not prefer the morals (or, "clubs"), of sociopaths, or Nazis? I addressed my opponent"s next objection regarding the law of noncontradiction above . My opponent next says that "You have not yet explained how a large amount of people doing something immoral would destroy the fact that the action is immoral. Besides, would you not say that people could disobey God? After all, look at all the murderers in the world. " This argument misses the point. This debate is about whether it is possible to ground morality on an objective basis, without God. This debate is not about whether morality would change if people felt differently , or whether people are capable of disobeying God. My opponent is obviously begging the question by assuming that people are doing something really, objectively, immoral. How does he arrive at this conclusion? He still has not explained how his morality is anything other than arbitrary. In conclusion, I want to emphasize what I think are the most important points of this debate. The position I am defending has remained nearly-entirely uncontested. As I have sought to illustrate throughout the debate, my opponent"s position, the so-called "club of man," has numerous problems, most prominently that the morals of the club of man are completely arbitrary. Those with different moralities, such as sociopaths or Nazis, are excluded without warrant. Add to this the fact that there is no method of enforcing the rules for morality - of rewarding good behavior and punishing bad. Finally, and crucially, there is no means of administering justice - there is no way for previous wrongs to be righted. As such, my opponent has not sustained the burden of proof. II think that the rational thing to do is to accept that God is necessary for objective morality.