An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God

After reading Con's argument, I must begin by stressing the definition of "objective" as in "objective moral code" (also known as absolute morals), which is what this debate concerns.Objective: Based on facts rather than feelings or opinions; not influenced by feelings [1] Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real [2] Both of Con's arguments were based on subjective things, not objective ones. However, I will refute them indivdually nonetheless to show how they don't fit as arguments for an objective moral code.Human feelings of empathy and sympathy:Con states: "Humans generally have the feelings/emotions of sympathy and empathy...How these two relate to morality is that these are the two basic emotions that cause us to form our morals."While it is true that humans can feel sympathy and empathy and they can help us form our own personal moral code, they in no way impact the existence of an objective moral code; they do not show that one exists, which is the topic of this debate. Moreover, a sociopath who does not feel these things still does a moral evil if he kills someone. Feelings are irrelevant when discussing this issue, since the issue concerns whether or not God is needed for an objective moral code, not a subjective one.Con states: "with these emotions we can place ourselves in that persons shoes, I don't go out a kill dogs because I can imagine and feel/imagine how terrible it must to die and lose a family pet."Again, this is true that we, as humans, can feel empathy for others and that can inform our decisions. However, empathy for a family losing their pet does not tell us why it is wrong to harm that pet. Empathy helps us to do what is best for others, but it is not the basis for an objective moral code, and is therefore a pointless argument.Con states: "Now, lets say your at the subway and someone falls onto the track and a train is coming so you jump down and save them, you do that not because God is telling you that its right you do it because its what you do its something that I call group survival." Con ignores that fact that this might seem like the natural thing to do, however, it is not. Take this fine example of "group survival": [3] (a quick warning: this is graphic)I ask Con to evaluate what it is that retains traits in the run of evolution's course, and to realize that looking out for the others in your species is something that is not a trait that developed any time recently, and has had plenty of time to die out. The reason for this is that once a species has survived the first steps (not dying), the need to procreate becomes the more pressing matter, with the ones who are most able to procreate being ths ones whose genes are passed on. How is looking out for eachother helpful to our individual procreation? In response to the second half, when Con says "you do that not because God is telling you that its right you do it because its what you do" - Whether or not God is actively telling us all what to do is not what is being asked. We are asking whether or not an objective moral code can exist without his existence, not whether natural moral urgings can.Societal Influence:Con states: "When this type of debate comes up people on the opposing side like to say 'Well, if there no punishment for bad things such as sin then what's wrong with thing like Hitler's concentration camps or religious persecutions or etc. etc.'"Yes this is what I would ask, and it would be a valid point. Con's response is: "Someone like Hitler and the Nazi party were brought up believing Jews were evil and that it was their religious/righteous duty to kill/ stop them at all cost. Meaning that what their doing wasn't wrong to them."This is ignoring the idea of objective morals: regardless of what a person thinks, it's wrong. Con must argue that an objective moral code can exist without God's existence, but he is arguing that no objective moral code exists whatsoever.Con states: "there is no whole world morality because the world is so diverse."Similar to above, Con is arguing here that no objective moral code exists; this is not the subject of the debate.Main Point:Con States: "But anyways my main point here is that religion doesn't teach moral upbringing its society always has been always will be."We are not arguing where we as a human species learned how to instinctively tell right from wrong. We are arguing whether or not God must exist for there to exist and objective moral code. That is, one that is free from human thought. To illustrate this, an objective moral code would say that it was objectively morally wrong for Stalin to kill all the people he did, and for all those Chinese commuters to pass by that little, dying girl regardless of what they thought was right or what their society thought was right, or even what their religion thought was right. Objectivity has to do with reason and logic. It has to do with what we can intellectually discern to be true in the external world, not what our instincts/passions/feelings tell us/inform us. My positive statement is that an objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God. Not that society doesn't inform our instinctual moral thoughts, not that religion teaches us what is right and wrong - that for an objective moral code to exist, God must. Debate this point.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...