The moral argument for God is sound.

I am disappointed pro ignored my request for clarity. He made several more claims and asked me many moral questions. How many times do I have to answer questions about who is right ? It will always depend on the reference moral standard, that my opponent systematically omitted. I will answer a few of pro's 'Who is right ? ' questions after having picked a reference moral standard. I will quote using AM and GM for being right according to my morality or God's morality respectively. So I would quote the question as “Who is right GM ? ”PGA : “The task of this debate is to show that the moral argument for God is rationally sound; it makes sense. To do this, it requires I demonstrate that the contrary argument makes no sense. ”If that is a convoluted way of saying that he is required to prove both premises of the argument are true, then pro is right. Otherwise he is wrong. 1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. My opponent proposes three ways to support the first premise.1) First my opponent proposes to prove God exists through the Bible. However, that would, if successful, only prove God's existence, not the the first premise. 2) PGA : “Contrast the two positions – God or impersonal forces. What is the more sensible explanation? ” That is a false dilemma fallacy. Pro assumes without justification that these are the only two possible positions. Pro then relies on the God of the gaps argument. He claims that science cannot yet explain the rise of consciousness and that therefore God must have done it. First, the possible dependence of consciousness on God is borderline off topic. Second, in the article a possible natural explanation for the rise of consciousness was mentioned. God wasn't. Third, I will address the worth of the God-of-the-gaps argument :In history, mankind has been confronted with millions of mysteries. Those mysteries can be roughly classified in two ways :a) those that have been solvedb) those that have not been solvedThose that have been solved have almost always received a natural explanation. I know of no exceptions. Perhaps pro can share some if he knows any. Therefore, given a mystery, history teaches us that if it will ever be solved, the explanation will most likely be a natural one, not a divine one. PGA : “With subjective beings, it appears we do not have the answers. World history testifies against subjective beings finding the moral truth without first presupposing God. ” World history as much testifies against subjective beings finding the moral truth without the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the photonic beings from the fifth dimension and Santa Claus. So what ? 3) PGA : “Show that subjective morality or relativism does not make sense of morality, nor can it. ” How would that support the first premise ? Suppose the above is granted, then what ? Pro would have to refute all alternative explanations for morality, not just relativismPGA : “Relativism would demonstrate the impossibility of basing morality on a fixed best. How do you determine "good" GM or "right" GM if you have no fixed best, just subjective beings arbitrarily making it up? ” If God exists my opponent should know God better than I do, so he should answer that question if it is relevant. Otherwise, the attributes of fictional beings are decided by convention. Hence what would be good and right according to God's morality would be decided by people. PGA : “The evolutionary system has no moral or teleological end in sight. If morals are always evolving then how does someone ever arrive at a BEST? ”[*] If "best" is arbitrarily made up and differs between cultures and people what standard do we measure "best" against? [**] [*] That depends on the person, the circumstances and the reference standard of quality. [**] I can speculate, but pro has presented no evidence that “best” is arbitrary. He has not even defined “best”. The quotes suggest the best used by people. Again, the answer depends on the people and circumstances. The rest of pro's questions are plagued with the same flaw. Pro is hinting at an argument that is too clearly fallacious to be presented. However, if the argument is merely suggested, the fallacy is harder to spot :Without God, the best people arrive at is unsatisfactory. Better (according pro's and hopefully the reader's opinion) would be to have some sort of ultimate best, that only God could provide. Then the nirvana fallacy should convince people that is indeed the case. PGA :“[1] Is genocide right? [ . . . ][5] Is child abuse/molestation right? Can my opponent say for certain? Does he know for certain? ”For righteousness according to GM the answer is that I don't know and I doubt it would be useful for me to speculate. According to my own morality, the short answers are :[1] to [5] NoYes, I can say for certain. PGA : 'So, if good is what evokes approval, then anything can be passed off as good. It is all relative. Therefore, to determine what is good an absolute, objective best is needed. [*] Can Con produce such a standard? [**] [*] Needed for what ? Pro has not even demonstrated a relation between morality and best. [**] Define absolute. Conclusion : My opponent didn't support the first premise. He presented a lot of questions and assumes that if no one (or more specifically, me) can answer them satisfactorily, God must be the explanation. How God is supposed to create that objective morality or best, is as big a mystery. Of course, God, if he exists, could do the same as everyone else : choose a moral standard, but that would put his morality in the same boat as everyone else's. It would also not explain how conscious beings get their morality, something that allegedly cannot happen naturally. 2. Objective morality does exist. PGA : “Con must show how two opposing subjective individuals, or systems of thought regarding what is right GM, can both (logically) be right GM, or how he determines which is correct. [*] The Law of Identity, as well as the Law of Noncontradiction, and Law of Excluded Middle says both can't be right GM because they state opposites. So, if he can't make sense of which moral view is indeed right GM then the case for the biblical (revealed) God (as the ultimate objective being) is sound in making sense of morality. [**] [*] Pro is mistaken. I must do no such thing, as I never claimed so and it is not my position. If two people are opposing each other about what is right, they are probably referring to different moral standards. Alice : “Jumping is right, while crouching is wrong. ”Bob : “Crouching is right, while jumping is wrong. ”Both may be correct, as long as they use different meaning for right and wrong, i. e. refer to different moral standards. Basically, pro equivocates the term 'right'. [**] That does not follow. My inability to determine who is right GM does not support God's existence, nor the existence of objective morality. PGA : “Con, which society is correct in its view of abortion as a woman's right to choose, or correct that it is wrong (unless in life threatening conditions)? ”Pro's question is again ambiguous. 'Correct' seems to refer to the standard of truth. More than one could be correct, as long as their claims are consistent with their (consistent) moral standard and with the standard of truth. PGA : “Without this fixed measure goodness and rightness loses its identity. [*] Morality makes no sense unless you have something more than subjective opinion to fix it on because it becomes a question of whose personal, relative opinion, or which cultural opinion? [**] Then, what makes such opinion RIGHT? Let’s see if Con has a solution or just wants to beg the question that morality doesn't need one. [***]”[*] That is not entirely false. The measure does not have to be fixed, but everyone needs to be using the same. Otherwise that could cause confusion, sometimes enough for people to feel the need to invent God. [**] That morality makes no sense to pro does not prevent it from making sense to others. Clearly pro dislikes a morality consisting of personal opinions. However, reality does not cater to pro's desires. [***] My solution can be found in post one. With a pertinent moral standard (one that classifies the behaviour of the claim) in principle all moral questions can be answered. PGA : “Morality requires mindful being, yet not just any mindful being. Morality is not dependent on Con's belief or my belief. It is independent of either. But morality is necessarily a product of conscious beings. The question is which mind is the necessary mind. Can Con point to that mind(s)? Can Con show his thinking is objective in regards to morality? ”That is fallacious. Pro relies on the following reasoning :In order to exist, X needs support from one person. A, B and C support X. Therefore, X does not depend on A, since B and C support it. Also, X does not depend on B, since A and C support it. Therefore, X depends on C. No, I can not show my thinking is objective in regards to morality and I never claimed it is. PGA : “I contend that morality is like mathematical laws; we discover them via our consciences. “Pro provided many references, but one to the mathematics of morality is missing. “The Bible lays down a moral code that I believe is most sensible and objective in our human dealing with each other:1) Do not murder,2) Do not steal,[ . . . ]If Con does not think these are objective moral standards of human conduct, then let him JUSTIFY how it is ever right to murder, lie, steal, or rape for fun. If he can't do that then, he thinks these are objective, universal moral obligations also. ”In debates one has no burden to justify what one thinks. With the proper standard, anything can be made 'right'. Pro implies these values are objective moral claims. I invite him to prove it. The argumentation for the existence of objective morality provided by pro is not even related to any of the definitions provided for the concept. May the truth prevail.