Objective Moral Values and Duties Show that God Exists

After a thorough analysis of my opponent's argument, I came to the conclusion that he makes two major assumptions. 1: Subjective morality is the equivalent of no morality. 2: In order for there to be objective morality, there must be a higher power. In my opponent's argument, he repeatedly states that if there is no set basis for morality, then there is no difference between two moral decisions. I claim that this is false by repeating my previous statements, morality comes from evolution and society. Stating that under subjective morality, there is no difference between two decisions such as to murder or not to murder is a weak claim. Think of subjective morality like a currency system. The currency you use is just a piece of paper or metal if you don't honor it with more value. If we treated currency like paper or metal, it would mean nothing. But we don't. We honor it, and that honor gives it more value than just some paper or metal. If we didn't honor our morals, they would have no meaning. But we do. The honor we give our morals by choosing to see murder as an immoral act gives it meaning. If we treated murder and not murdering the same, then they would be. But using our subjective morality, derived from evolution and society, we choose that one out of two possible decisions is moral. Under further clarification, the main difference between objective and subjective morality is where the morals come from. Objective morality comes from a higher power (or from certain philosophical ideas, more on that later). Subjective morality comes from our society and our conscience formed via evolution. Both theoretical objective morality and subjective morality give you valid differences between right and wrong. In my opponent's opening statement, he states in premise three that because objective morality exists, God exists. This is a major part of his argument, but I believe that it makes a huge assumption. Why does objective morality have to come from a higher power? It is just as likely, if not more so, for objective morality to come from certain philosophical ideas. One idea is Kantism. It states that if a maxim, or rule, cannot be applied to every person, then you cannot follow it. That is, if everyone can do the same thing you do, then it is moral. These laws can apply to everyone and is objective because it does not change for one individual's want or need. The law is a bit more complicated when it gets to exceptions, but generally, if everyone cannot do something, neither can you. Another idea is utilitarianism. Under this concept, the choice that benefits the most people, whether you are one of those people or not, is the decision that is the one that is objectively the best one. If you are faced with a moral decision, then according to utilitarianism, you should pick the decision that benefits the most people. This is objective because when faced with a decision, there is a clear answer to each question. Both of these ideas support my claim that objective morality can exist without a God. Could a God place objective rules for us to follow? Yes. But does proving the existence of objective morality prove the existence of God? No. In conclusion, our morals are subjective because each person thinks about morality differently. If there were objective morals, they don't necessarily have to be tied to a higher power. Thanks for reading my argument and thanks to my opponent for debating me! Sources: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com... http://www.csus.edu...