The Moral Argument is Sound!

I appreciate StevenDixon for wanting to debate this topic with me. We are debating the moral argument and whether or not it is sound. In this debate I am going to present a deductive argument(top-down logic) which is one of two ways science reaches conclusions. A Deductive Argument is a form of argument where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If the premises are true then the conclusion of the argument must also be true. http://www.iep.utm.edu... Formulation The Moral Argument is logically valid standard Modus tollens formulation. Modus tollens is a valid argument form in logic. Let's note that I am not arguing that morality based in God is in any way arbitrary but necessary. This is how we can chose not to ablidge the moral values and duties set upon us any given time. I must show that both premises in the moral argument are true. If Con wants to deny the conclusion, he must object one of the two premisses. http://www.cs.ucsb.edu... i) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist ii) Objective moral values and duties exist This debate is not whether or not we can be moral without God. I am going to defend two contentions in this debate: (i) that objective moral values and duties exist through God, and (ii) that nature itself does not provide a sound basis for morality. C1} Objective moral values and duties exist through God If Objective morality exist then we would notice it. Objective morality would be necessary and moral values and duties would be a system of ethics which are universally seperate of the opinions of individual human persons. Just like 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true even if everyone in the world disagreed. This view, known in philosophy as "moral realism," contrasts with "moral relativism" which maintains there is no correct objective moral values and judgements. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... We weigh our goods and bads in ranking systems. We use these ranking systems to determine what is good or bad but there must be a standard to make such a standard possible. Thinking of our moral experience like the experience of our five senses helps to show the objectivity of morality. Everyone shares the five senses experience, just as everyone shares the moral experience. The only reasonable conclusion for moral truths that impose values and duties is a being with moral excellence. Only an moral standard is necessary for objective moral values. http://www.maverick-christian.org... The idea of moral values and duties are clear, they provid reference to some higher lawmaker than those of our physical state. Oour moral obligations can be understood as imposed. If God does not exist to establish objective moral value and duties then where do they come from? Unlike opposing theories, the Divine Command Theory provides an objective metaphysical foundation for morality. Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon a personnel being, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of this personnel being, and that the morally right action is the one that this being commands or requires. http://www.iep.utm.edu... According to the Divine Command theory, our life does not end at the grave, all persons are morally accountable for their actions. God triumphs over evil and justice will be balanced. Therefore, the choices that we make have an eternal significance. The cause for moral values and duties would have to be some external cause of all physical reality, and there are two things that fit that requirement: abstract objects and unembodied minds. Abstract objects can’t cause anything which leaves the only viable candidate as an unembodied mind. God is divinely intelligent and He expresses this divine intelligence completely free from ignorance. He is the one divine source of order or law. Even science has projected the idea that our universe is like a giant brain. In many philosophies, the conscious mind is considered to be a separate entity, existing in a parallel realm not described by physical law. Therefore, we have reason to consider that a mind imposes morality on us. http://www.social-consciousness.com... C2} Nature itself does not provide a sound basis for morality. If naturalism is true, objective right and wrong do not exist. By naturalistic views moral values are just behavioral and biological products of social conditioning. We are left wanting on the natural view on objective morality. How can we ground morality in the natural world when nature is morally neutral? Science and society depends upon these moral values. If these moral values and duties are just illusions, then science and society use illusion. There’s no good evidence that our perception of moral values have been programmed by evolution. Without God, there is no objective rights and wrongs. It becomes impossible to condemn any crime really. It would seem that there would be nothing wrong with rape, murder, war, and oppression. Equally so, there would be no reason to praise equality, love, and freedom as good. There would no accountability for ones own actions. Even if there were moral values an duties under natural means then it would mean nothing to us, nothing more than basic animals. By naturalism if we live good or bad really does not matter because there is no moral cost. If would no pay for the rich and morr valuable members society to not help others or sacrifice themselves because they are in selfindulgence. The absence of accountability in naturalism makes the value virtues of compassion and sacrifice hollow. Naturalism fails to offer any elements necessary for any sound moral foundation. God being known as the personal being who provides the absolute standard against which all actions are measured. God as described is maximally great, making Him the standard of moral greatness, making Him the being that issues moral commands. The existence of God is merely the explanation of why those values exist. With all factors being considered, the simplest explanation is the best one. In Occam's razor it is a principle that states "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." http://math.ucr.edu... Conclusion Divine command theory and theism offers a sound foundation for morality because it explains the grounds of both objective moral values and duties. If God exists, we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. Any argument from moral scepticism will come from premises that are less obvious than moral truths. Other explanations are not as good because given them, objective moral values and duties would plausibly not exist. The moral argument provides a perfectly coherent and sound basis for morality. It appears that the premises are true and the conclusion as presented is iron clad. I await my opponents rebuttal.