God must Exist for Objective Moral values to Exist

(1) Knowing whether or not a god(s) exists is irrelevant to our understanding of what morality is (2) Using one avenue of beliefs to justify a certain view, while dismissing others especially when the view is contrary to human well-being, isn't a valid case to suggest a deity exists to whose morality we need to administer to (3) Therefore god(s) isn't needed (1) Our knowing of a supernatural being(s) exists or not is irrelevant to our understanding of what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Seeing that there is a plethora of religious ideologies, it is a biased claim to make that one out of the thousands, is the one to consider and help our understanding of morality. As our culture evolves, our understanding of the natural world, science and medicine, there are facts to which contribute to our understanding of human and animal well-being and how it helps determine what we consider good for us and not so good. We know its possible to live in a failed state with everything that can go wrong does go wrong, where a mother can't feed her children, where strangers cannot find the basis for peaceful collaboration, and people are murdered indiscriminately. We know of truths in where human communities can flourish versus those that cannot based on that community's current understanding of the natural world, science, and medicine. Now it may be of worry to the notion of well being where it is truly undefined and perpetually redefined to what is true morality so how can there be objective morality. As one example, the concept of physical health has changed over the years and millennium, where back in early Greek times the life expectancy was round 30 but now because of better understanding of science and medicine our life expectancy is around 80. Our understanding of this well-being is a prime contributor to our understanding of what we as a society can decipher what is morally right and what is morally wrong because of the impact it can have toward our physical and mental well-being. We do not need to know if a deity exists in order to come to a conclusion of morality when scientific observation, trial & error, has contributed to our society immensely to know factually what is good or bad for our and animal well-being. (2) To perpetuate one religious view point while ignoring all other religious view points, isn't a valid method to use to prove a supernatural being exists whose morality we must observe. There are cultures whose understanding of morality is essentially stunning the human progression of that community and their well-being. Let's take the example used by Sam Harris lecture regarding his book "The Moral Landscape". He mentioned an example in where he had a brief conversation with a colleague of his where he asked her regarding human well-being and other cultures understanding of morality where if a woman is raped, the next thing that happens is the father will kill her out of shame. His colleagues' reply was how can we determine that is morally wrong? Sam, shocked by her reply, asked her a different way, which I want to add to this debate: "If we were to find a culture where it was religiously customary and written in their holy text to be obeyed that they are to remove the eyes of every third child, in order to honor god in darkness, or whatever other nonsense, is that contributing to human progression and well-being?" Many Christian apologists adhere to the bible as their source for understanding their deity's definitions of what is morally good and evil. This is a failed attempt to provide as evidence that we are to use the bible as our moral guide when in fact it alarmingly contradicts human progression and well-being. I will use one example and that is the slaughter of innocence. The bible is explicit in providing detailed accounts in where the god of the bible ordered, carried out, and/or approved genocide of the innocence. I will provide two examples: Noah's Flood and Killing of babies and pregnant women. Genesis chapters 5-6 give a story of how god felt regret creating mankind because they've become far beyond the ability of being rehabilitated. He is given no other choice but to completely wipe out humanity (animals included) and to start over. Who were among the ones killed by means of drowning? Everyone. Including babies who had no chance to understand or even get the chance to decide if they wanted to worship god. Animals all over the planet is killed off, for what reason? The bible isn't clear as to why but to accept that god, the supposed creator of the universe, isn't able to find another way to rehabilitate his creation, says volumes regarding his sense of right and wrong. Hosea 13:16 states: "Samaria shall become desolate; for she has rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." In which context is this acceptable where it contributes to human progression and human well-being? This is among hundreds of things that are virtually repeated throughout the bible and that is just one religious ideology among others that have their own contradictions to human well-being. (3) Seeing that our understanding of what helps human progression and contributes to human well-being by using science and logic, when compared to the ideologies of religious dogma, it plainly shows that religious dogma are not to be considered as key components that should be used to help strive for human progression and human well-being. History has shown that when using religious dogma to dictate what is morally right and what is morally wrong has been proven to stun human progression. Case in point, the era known as the dark ages, religion did in fact contribute to the people of that time to believe in diluted ideas that today are scientifically and medically incorrect and cannot be used for human well-being. As an example it was believed by the Roman Catholic church that the people weren't allowed to obtain a copy of the bible, that it was a good thing to be illiterate and let the priests teach the people what they feel they should know. This has lead many to believe in a lot of folklore, superstitions which has lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths, wide spread panic, disease, and stunned human progression as well as diminished human well-being. Examples like those plainly shows that we can not imply that using religious dogma and believing any deity (defined by any religion) exists and whose sense of morality we should adhere to. Is there a view point that we can consider that will contribute to human progression and well-being? Yes there is and it stems from, not religious ideas, but rather scientific and evolutionary understandings. As a social species we have come up with the universal well-being rule known as the "golden rule" and there are cultures of antiquity that were untouched by Christian/Islamic/Judaism influence of the time that were able to come up with such a common universal rule on their own by basically understanding the facts that contribute to human well-being. Apologists would try to point that certain viewpoints, like Atheism, are just as dangerous, because of such times in history where they attribute atheism with such people like Stalin and Hitler. This is a fallacy that is constantly used to prove atheism isn't a worldview to consider that it's a dangerous viewpoint, and people like Ray Comfort are habitually using this key argument when debating with atheists. I would like to invite my opponent to consider the following video (though it is simplified) which is a description of how poor the Hitler/Nazi analogies are, particularly those that one hears coming from the religious right. http://www.youtube.com... Can we obtain morality that can benefit human progression and well-being without the help of some supernatural entity? Yes we can, with reason, evidence as well as scientific understandings and medical advancements, which contributes our better, factual, understanding to what is good toward human well-being. Sources: The Moral Landscape Letter to a Christian Nation god is not Great Wikipedia Youtube King James Bible