Resolved : A Christian God is necessary in order for objective morality to exist.

Hopping straight onto this. As I have stated Pro has the BOP to show that a Christian God is necessary for objective morality to exist. Objective morality per the definition is a system or set of moral judgement that are not true due to a persons subjective opinion, but are factually true. The hard part is trying to pin what objective morality actually entails. Are we referring to an universal set of guidelines and principles that exist throughout everything, or are we defining a set of objective principles that exist among certain cultures and vary from culture to culture. C1) Objective Morality and Different Cultures ( opening) There are certain truths that can vary from nation to nation but that are objective facts. It is objectively wrong to kill someone without cause in America. It is also considered objectively wrong to rape a child. Now the issue with this is someone can say, it's not wrong to me therefore it is subjective. This is a false perspective, because what is objectively right or wrong can exist and be true despite one persons subjective opinion. If one person thinks its okay to kill without cause, that does not shift the fact that it is morally wrong to kill without cause. It's like a law in some ways. There are some laws that are true. Again murder for example, murdering without cause is wrong. If you murder without cause it is committing a crime. Just because someone may view this as a non crime does not change the fact that it is a crime. If they murder without a cause, they will still be punished. Morality among cultures and nations is often the same way. There are guidelines and moral causes that exist within cultures that are objectively true despite someones opinions and thoughts, that are entirely non dependent of someones subjective perception of what morality is. Now the following contentions will define and label some ways we can gauge objective morality without God and how objective morality can be defined in both cultures and even on a larger scale. Basically for objective morality to be true, there has to be a way to gauge what is right and wrong. Pro is asserting that there is no way to gauge this without a Christian God ( The moral argument for Gods existence), and i'm negating this with the fact there are countless ways to gauge morality without a God. C2) The Veil of IgnoranceThis was developed by John Rawl and was one of his most if not most greatest contribution to philosophy[1]. His contribution literally stemmed from his desire for equality under a common system that everyone could embrace. This is basically a thought experiment developed by Rawl. This is defined by the word rational, and what a normal ration citizen would want in a way. If you could take one rational person and ask them how a society should be ran, and apply the veil of ignorance then you have a guideline for morality. Basically the veil of ignorance is a way for someone to act without applying conditions like social status, income, age, sex, etc. " Veil of ignorance: The exclusion of superfluous information such as age, sex, etc. allows for the determination of choice to be rendered justly and without the difference principle, which worsens the societal situation of those members who are worst off - John Rawls. Rawls’ concept of the “veil of ignorance” is a model for adopting principles of justice and was derived from an unpublished document of the same title written by Wilfried Hinsch. The concept has been submitted as a solution for equalizing people’s personal interests and doctrines as a means for allowing the political conception of justice to be successful employed. " [2]The rational person concept was worked up after this theory, Shelly Kagan is a person who uses this often [3]. People often misinterpret this debate as whether or not an atheist can act morally which is wrong, because obviously someone who lacks belief in God can act morally. The debate hinges on the fact whether we need a God for objective moral values to exist. Now to extend further on this and back to the rational person perspective. There are different ways we could come up with how morality is objective. We can propose that it's defined by contractarianism. This is that it is defined by ideal reasoners in which you could separate one individual or use the group and apply the veil of ignorance. As I have already stated the veil of ignorance is a way to exclude any type of social interest, age, sex or anything else that could effect someones subjective ideas on what would make an ideal moral system. So at this stage you are asking any rational being or person what is considered moral and non moral. Most often you will find you will get the same answers. It's wrong to kill without cause, it's wrong to rape, it's wrong to do things without consent. Almost any rational person will give you the same logical answers and the veil of ignorance helps separate someones own personal interest from the occasion. Most of these answer tie into what helps people and what harms people, and this goes into my next contention. C3) Help Vs HarmThis ties into C2 in a way but is yet another way to define objective morality. What can help one person or what can harm one person is a guidelines for what is morally right and morally wrong. This obviously has some faults in it that we will address in detail as they come up, but essentially it is a good guideline for what is morally right and morally wrong. So to lay this out in a proper syllogism. P1) Any action that intentionally harms someone is morally wrongP2) (x action ) intentionally harms (x) personC) x action is morally wrongThis is a basic guideline for it, but any action that you know that will directly and intentionally cause someone harm could be considered wrong because you are knowing and intentionally harming that person. Most rational people would not want to cause harm to someone even if in self interest. Why is it wrong to kill someone and take their money? Because you are harming that person. Sure it could benefit you, but intentionally causing pain to someone for self benefit is entirely wrong. C4) UtilitarianismThis is another fun way to apply objective facts and come up with them. What is beneficial to society as a whole could be considered morally correct. There are certain actions that will help and advance society in a way that benefits the entire society. Any action that calls under these guidelines could be considered morally acceptable. P1) Any action that benefits society as a whole is morally permissible P2) (x) Action benefits society as a wholeC) (x) Action is morally permissible. ConclusionIn short there are a lot of ways to define and label objective morality without a God. As per the debate title we are debating a Christian God is necessary for Objective morality to exist. I have disproved that with 3 ways in which we can gauge morality without a God.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] https://www.papermasters.com...[3]