Is The Biblical God Morally Better Than Humans

This next part is kind of hard for me not because my opponent laid out a flawless argument, which he didn't by the way, but because he really didn't lay out an argument at all. My opponent went straight into rebutting what I wrote but rebuttals weren't suppose to happen until the next round. Anyway, my opponent says that I don"t know what atheism is or what it states but the definition of atheism is subjective and even if I tried to define atheism I may still get it wrong because that definition may not fit my opponent"s brand of atheism. Since atheists usually have their own unique individual definitions for their atheism, I may not know what his definition of his particular type of atheism is but morally speaking all atheists usually agree that morals are subjective and that view point is the only thing that matters during this debate. If my opponent is so sure that no absolute objective moral standard exist, then how can he say for certain that God"s or anyone else"s behavior is moral or immoral? He can say that in his opinion God"s behavior is immoral or moral but his opinion would be all that he really has at this point. There's an argument I wanted to post with regard to God being the absolute standard of morality but since it takes up a lot of space (as I will need the room to try to rebut my opponent's other arguments) I will post the link here. http://www.apologeticspress.org... Here's part of the argument and the rest can be read at the link I've mentioned. "The moral argument for the existence of God has been stated in a variety of ways through the centuries. One way in which the basic argument has been worded is as follows (see Craig, n.d.; Craig and Tooley, 1994; Cowan, 2005, p. 166): Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values exist. Conclusion: God exists. Thomas B. Warren worded the argument in a positive, more detailed manner in his debates with atheist Antony Flew (p. 173) and Wallace Matson (p. 285). If the moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong), then there must be some objective standard (some "higher law which transcends the provincial and transient") which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized. The moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong). Therefore, there must be some objective standard (some "higher law which transcends the provincial and transient") which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized." Once again I'm not trying to prove God's existence for the premise of this debate is that God dose indeed exist. I'm trying to demonstrate that if my opponent wants to deem the actions of God either moral or immoral, he must object to an absolute moral standard that is above God but the problem he has is that he believes an objective moral standard does not exist. My opponent said that I don"t know what atheism is but once again how could I possibly define atheism if even my opponent agrees that atheism is a worldview that is not universal? He is proving my point that atheism varies from individual to individual. He also states that atheists do not make moral claims. How can that be if atheists believe that morals are subjective yet often accuse the actions of others as either morally good or bad? Is that not making a moral claim or at least moral judgment? If morals are merely opinions, why say anything or voice moral disapproval at all? My opponent touched or social views that I brought up in my argument but once again my opponent cannot say why said social norms are either morally good or bad. He can say that we should do good things in society in order to benefit society but the question is why? Some people don't care about benefiting society. Why is benefiting society a good thing especially if people can do a much better job only benefiting themselves why ignoring the wants and needs of the rest of society? I was considering using the rest of this time trying to rebut my opponents arguments that he pulled from the Bible but since my opponent believes that morals are subjective, it would only be his opinion that the Biblical God is immoral. He can try to explain that God is immoral all he wants but once again: 1) what moral standard is he adhering to and 2) why does he believe that moral standard is good enough to judge God? Until he answers these two questions, he doesn't have much of an argument.