God must Exist for Objective Moral values to Exist

“(1)” This is my response to paragraph 1 of Con’s argument. I do not have enough room to copy his paragraphs. I have decided to just rather copy the number of he paragraphs and respond to them. Con seems to misunderstand my argument that I put forward at the beginning of this debate. I never said that we must “believe” in God or “know” him personally to know that objective moral values exist. I said that morality is based on personal experience. As I addressed previously in my opening statement, every human being knows things like: murder, rape torture, etc. are morally evil. And things like: Love, justice, mercy, kindness, and forgiveness. Regardless of what society, country, or culture you were raised in every human being around the world knows these things are right or wrong. Another problem with Con’s argument is that he contributes well being to moral value. In other words, my opponent is not arguing about moral values, but rather what is beneficial to the flourishing of a society in which to live in. Of course science can help tell us what is “beneficial” to the flourishing of society. We can say the same thing about Corn. Corn for example, needs: water, sunlight, and constant nurture to help it “flourish.” But Corn in of itself has no moral value. We don’t say “Oh that poor corn.” “Oh how I felt so bad for this corn, why did it have to rot and die?” That would be silly. There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there is any possible world in which A is not identical to B, it follows that A is not in fact identical to B. Since it's possible that human well-being and moral goodness are not identical, it follows necessarily that human well-being and moral goodness are not the same. I think Jerry Fodor a philosopher put it best when he said "Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it wouldn't tell us what is wrong with how we are."17 In particular it cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to human flourishing.” “ (2)” This is my response to paragraph 2 of Con’s argument. I would like the record to show to the audience that argument (2) from Con is irrelevant to our debate topic. We are not debating “Which God is the one true God?” or “Which religion is right?” We are simply debating if God’s existence is necessary for objective moral values to exist. I am not forfeiting this argument, nor is this a cop-out. Now if Con would like to debate me on this issue, I would be glad to answer his objections, and address the bible passages he took out of context in another debate. I am simply just saying this is not relevant to our debate topic. “(3)” This is my response to paragraph 3 of Con’s argument. Con still can’t answer the “value problem”. He attempts to redefine “good and bad” by using them in a non-moral sense. But the words “good and bad” are used in non-moral senses all the time. Take Football for example. “Texas A&M has a good football team.” “Johnny Manziel is a good quarterback.” Or take bad for example “This fruit smells bad.” “This lighting is bad.” Clearly these words good and bad used in the non-moral sense don’t prove that they are morally good or bad. I hope for example Texas A&M’s football team is morally and ethnically a good team, but I mean they are good based on how well they play. Or when I was talking about fruit for example, I don’t mean the fruit is morally evil. I mean that the fruit is bad based on its smell. Con still assumes that moral values and human well being is the same. Is there a view point that we can consider that will contribute to human progression and well-being? Yes there is and it stems from, not religious ideas, but rather scientific and evolutionary understandings. As a social species we have come up with the universal well-being rule known as the "golden rule" and there are cultures of antiquity that were untouched by Christian/Islamic/Judaism influence of the time that were able to come up with such a common universal rule on their own by basically understanding the facts that contribute to human well-being. Apologists would try to point that certain viewpoints, like Atheism, are just as dangerous, because of such times in history where they attribute atheism with such people like Stalin and Hitler. "This is a fallacy that is constantly used to prove atheism isn't a worldview to consider that it's a dangerous viewpoint, and people like Ray Comfort are habitually using this key argument when debating with atheists. I would like to invite my opponent to consider the following video (though it is simplified) which is a description of how poor the Hitler/Nazi analogies are, particularly those that one hears coming from the religious right." Again I never said that we must “believe” in God or “know” him personally to know that objective moral values exist. I said that morality is based on personal experience. And plus the bible says the Law is written on everyone's heart. That means that everyone knows right and wrong. Second, it is not a fallacy that Atheism can lead you to do what Hitler and Stalin did. If God does not exist, then you as a human being do not have a moral accountability. On the Atheist worldview, Hitler was doing was applying Social Darwinism to the Jews. Hitler said” I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of their conscience.” Stalin was a seminary Student in an Orthodox seminary, when he lost his faith in God. Look at this example by what Stalin said about a chicken. “On one occasion, so it was narrated, Stalin called for a live chicken and proceeded to use it to make an unforgettable point before some of his henchmen. Forcefully clutching the chicken in one hand, with the other he began to systematically pluck out its feathers. As the chicken struggled in vain to escape, he continued with the painful denuding until the bird was completely stripped. “Now you watch,” Stalin said as he placed the chicken on the floor and walked away with some bread crumbs in his hand. Incredibly, the fear-crazed chicken hobbled toward him and clung to the legs of his trousers. Stalin threw a handful of grain to the bird, and it began to follow him around the room, he turned to his dumbfounded colleagues and said quietly, “This is the way to rule the people. Did you see how that chicken followed me for food, even though I had caused it such torture? People are like that chicken. If you inflict inordinate pain on them they will follow you for food the rest of their lives.” May I ask on what moral basis or grounds is what Hitler or Stalin did right or wrong? Can we obtain morality that can benefit human progression and well-being without the help of some supernatural entity? Yes we can, with reason, evidence as well as scientific understandings and medical advancements, which contributes our better, factual, understanding to what is good toward human well-being. In Conclusion: Con has failed to show the basis or moral foundation for objective moral values to exist. He has only argued how society can benefit from good and bad. It is just like Evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse said “, "The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. … Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory." Only with a moral law giver can we make any claim to good and evil, since it is who he gives us a moral conscience to differientiate between good and evil. Any other claim would be subjective. Sources: http://www.mrdowling.com... http://www.reasonablefaith.org... Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God, (Word Publ., Dallas: 1994), pp. 26-27 https://bible.org...