Objective Moral Values and Duties must be grounded in God

I will start off by addressing the concerns surrounding my definitions. I do not feel that I have changed the definition of morality from the one provided in the OED. I have just pointed out those segments of the definition which are implied in order to maintain clarity and avoid confusion. Things are granted the status of "right or wrong" from a particular perspective. If one wishes, for example, to remain thin, he would view overeating as a "bad" thing. If, however, one would like to gain weight, he would consider overeating to be a "good" thing. As such, one who wishes to be included in the group of Man would view doing that which allows him to join as "good", and the opposite actions as "bad". As for the issue of Man vs. Human, those who reside within the group of Man are forced to have a certain quality, while those who are within the group of Humans have to have an unrelated quality (not being able to reproduce with those of different species). This is not to say that the groups are mutually exclusive. For the distinction to be "without rational justification", one would have to claim that the qualities that the groups are based on are one and the same. If they are not, the groups are necessarily different. "But sociopaths don't see anything wrong with their actions{. .. } {m}y opponent has thus failed to give a truly objective ontological basis for morality. " The recognition of objective morality is not required for the objective morality to exist. If I were to, say, claim that 1+1=3, the fact that 1+1 objectively equals 3 is not harmed. The so-called "morality" of those living in a world run by Nazis would not be morality at all. As my opponent pointed out, two "moralities" cannot coexist while both claim to be objective. "Notice too that my opponent has used a conditional ought{. .. } For a morality to be objective, it must regard unconditional oughtness. " I must admit that I've become a bit confused when reading this. I fail to see the distinction between unconditional and conditional "oughts". For example, as my opponent said, an unconditional ought using his definition does not necessarily disregard circumstances. However, does that not make his "unconditional ought" become a "conditional ought"? If killing is wrong except in self defence, could you not say the following: If the killing is not done in self defence, then the action is morally wrong. Would the "ought", then, be conditional? After all, it follows the format of "if x, then y". It is dependant on x, with x being the circumstance. "Moreover, the very notion of morality is undermined and meaningless without an omniscient being to judge actions objectively. " That "being" that would judge actions without a God would be reality. "Most importantly, my opponent has misrepresented my position by saying that{. .. } find a source of ontological objectivity that is not God" I will concede this point. "Who is to say which society is correct? {. .. } Were it the case that morality only describes what is, then no one could ever condone or condemn any action. " I can see how one can misinterpret my argument, so allow me to clarify myself. The issue here is that I do not believe that one can act against the state of reality. They must act within the boundaries of logic. Morality is what tells you what you can and cannot do. You cannot draw a square triangle. Similarly, one cannot be irrational while still being called Man. Contradictions do not exist. One society cannot make claims that directly clash with reality while still being correct. "The burden of proof is on him: how exactly could morality be grounded objectively, in something other than God? " I was not begging the question, as I had included, within the round, my arguments for the existence of objective morality without God. "I would thus be able to turn this objection around: How does my opponent know that he perceives the world well enough to make the claim that objective morality doesn't require God? " I don't believe I do. However, since the fact that either of us arguing over this point would end in the debate being useless, I have decided to assume that logic does, in fact, accurately describe the universe, for the sake of the debate. If you wish to pursue this line of argumentation, it will end in us both coming to the conclusion that "we don't really know either way".