God is the Best Explanation for Morality

In this debate I will be arguing for one major contention: God is the best explanation of morality. By that, I mean that the existence of objective moral facts is best explained by positing the existence of a supreme being. By "best explanation." I mean it is superior to competing theories in terms of its explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hocness, accord with already accepted beliefs, and comparative superiority. [1]I will be defending two arguments, the first is:1. If objective moral facts exist, then God exists.2. Objective moral facs exist.3. Therefore, God exists. By "objective," I refer to the state of being true regardless of human opinion. For example, to say that X (Say, torturing babies for fun) is wrong is to say that "it is wrong for anyone to do X, that X is universally undesirable, that it is wrong to do X even if a person finds pleasure in doing it, and that everyone ought to refrain from doing X." [2] By "moral facts," I refer to both values and duties.According to the first premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these moral facts have their foundation in the nature of God. This is because morality is prescriptive and is expressed to us in the form of statements such as “Do not lie” and “Do not murder." These statements carry with them a degree of incumbency – that is to say, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Therefore, moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. But why should we think that morality is objective? Here are several reasons why the second premise is true.1) The objectivity of morality is the best explanation for our everyday experience.The objectivity of morality accords with pre-existing beliefs regarding morality. Beliefs such as "It's wrong to beat your wife," "Child sex-slavery is immoral," and "Treat others fairly" all seem to express true moral facts. Why should we accept moral relativism when it leads to conclusions that are counterintuitive? As Tim Keller puts it, “"If a premise ('There is no God') leads to a conclusion you know isn't true ('Napalming babies is culturally relative'), then why not change the premise?" [3] 2) The objectivity of morality allows for moral judgementsWe commonly condemn people or actions as being immoral or praiseworthy. But, if morality is nothing more than one's mere opinion, then it makes no sense condemning or praising someone for their opinion, for the opinion of the serial killer is just as valid as the charity worker's.3) The objectivity of morality allows for moral progressCompare the beliefs of antebellum Americans regarding slavery and those held by Americans today. Most people would tend to agree that the change reflects one of moral progress. But how can there be moral progress is morality is not objective? For there to be progress, there has to be a standard to which moral changes can be judged by. If there is no such standard, then all we're left with is simply valueless change.I've given several good reasons to think that P2 is true. If this be the case, then the conclusion follows by logical deduction.These are just a few reasons. For space considerations, I have left out several points. Should my opponent choose to attack P2, however, I will elaborate further in subsequent rounds.My second argument is based on notions of human dignity and equality. It goes as follows:1. If human dignity and equality exists, then God exists2. Human dignity and equality exists3. Therefore, God exists.According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." [4] Indeed, this fact so clear that I will not elaborate much on it, for the burden of proof is on the skeptic to challenge this. It doesn't matter whether a person is poor or rich, Christian or Muslim, man or woman -- he is equal alongside his fellow human beings. We complain of human/civil rights violations in society and decry atrocities commited against others (Such as slavery) precisely because we recognize the fact that humans are equal in dignity and equality.But how can a naturalistic universe ground notions of dignity and equality? In the naturalistic scenario, humans aren't any more special than plants, animals, or even dirt. "Dignity" and "value" are to be found nowhere, much less do we expect them to be instantiated in human beings. Moreover, what could equality be based on? Properties such as rationality, height, skin color, etc... are all degreed properties. They come in degrees of more or less. They thus cannot be the ground of equality.Theism, on the othe hand, furnishes a rich and substantive explanation of both dignity and equality. On the theistic scenario, humanity is endowed with intrinsic goodness by a God who creates them in his own image. Humanity is equal because they each are made in the image of God, and not because of some degreed property they have.ConclusionThe arguments I have mentioned provide a strong case for God being the best explanation of morality. My opponent will have a tall task at hand, but I welcome the challenge, and may we both learn from this debate. _______[1] -- J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers, Grove, IL: Intervarsity. 2003) p.62 [2] -- Hadley Arkes, "First Things" (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1986) p.24 [3] -- Timothy J. Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York, NY: Dutton. 2008) p.156[4] -- http://www.un.org...