Without God there can be no absolute morals.

My opponent states that "utilitarianism that also helps you could just be considered egoism." According to my first source from the previous round, this is false. It states that "the egotist really only cares about his own happiness" while utilitarian theory believes that "everyone's happiness counts equally." I don't see a need to cite this source again. There are many different types of egoism. Psychological egoism claims that each person's only aim is his or her own welfare. Normative forms make claims about what people ought to do. Ethical egoism, which seems closest to my opponent's resolution, is that it is necessary for an action to be morally right to maximize self-interest. And rational egoism believes that an action must be rational to maximize self-interest [1]. Would my opponent mind clarifying which aspect of egoism he supports and - in accordance with the resolution - how it requires God to be an absolute moral? My opponent again seems to forget his resolution - without God, there are no absolute morals. Therefore, if my opponent is arguing against the existence of God, he is arguing against egoism being an absolute moral just as much as he is against utilitarianism. If my opponent is arguing for the existence of God, then he has to establish egoism as God's absolute moral. This is not a debate of egoism versus utilitarianism (though I would love to see such a debate). My opponent claims that utilitarianism can only be absolutely right if "an omnipotent God deemed it absolutely right." This argument applies to egoism as well. My opponent states that "you are the only thing/person you can really know even exists." I find several faults with this assertion. My interactions with other people prove they exist. When I hand in a paper to a professor, I know he or she is not a figment existing in my mind. When I order from a restaurant or participate in a job interview, I know the same. When I see news reporters on television and footage from people suffering in the Middle East, I know they exist. When I read a history textbook or a visit a museum, I know the things I'm reading about and seeing really occurred. I cannot see or hear gravity, but scientifically, I know it exists. Scientific evidence trumps individual perceptions. On happiness - if you gain happiness from helping others, then it does make sense to help other people, even without the existence of an afterlife. Whether or not people are motivated by a sense of self-interest has no bearing on God's existence being necessary for absolute morals unless my opponent connects the two. Thus far, he has failed to do so. In response to my opponent's response to (6), I have to ask - why can God exist in your mind, your own universe, but other people cannot? Additionally, I am aware of other people's perspectives even without God. You are aware of my perspective right now - we are on a debate website arguing our perspectives. Your mind necessarily needs to incorporate the perspectives and notions of other people unless you live in complete isolation which, in this day in age, practically nobody does. The Association of International Product Marketing and Management states that the lives of humans "depend on other humans" [2]. When not just our interactions but our lives connect and link together, one can hardly claim with validity that other perspectives and people do not exist within your mind. My opponent says "to the earth/cosmos, nothing exists." The earth and cosmos are not sentient. Nothing exists to them because they are incapable of recognizing existence. My opponent then describes the perspectives of others existing as shadows. This contradicts several of his earlier points regarding their non-existence, and I urge the voters to note this. If he does not heed any "laws" received from these "shadows," why should anyone do so from a God? Is this not the same sentiment? Additionally, how does this apply to the laws of society - laws made to other people? If they are their perspectives do not exist or do not have to be heeded, we would have chaos. I find it interesting that my opponent indirectly argues that God is more realistic and believable (though we have no evidence of his existence) than the people we physically can see, touch, and interact with. How can God be more real to person A than person C is? In response to the Chinese boy, I re-affirm my earlier point - if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? My opponent's argument is no, it does not, because nobody experienced it. But this does not make the event any less real. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines morality as beliefs about what is right and wrong behavior [3]. My opponent can believe that it is morally better to act for your own interest, and I can believe that it is morally better to act for the interest of others (and we can agree that if it benefits yourself, so much the better). My argument is not that one position is superior - that is irrelevant to the resolution. My argument is that the existence of God has no bear on the absoluteness or relativity of these morals. I do not believe absolute morals can exist even with a God. Which God? Why are the morals of the Christian God more absolute than those of the Muslim God? Of Zeus? Of Thor? And if God's morals are absolute, why doesn't everyone accept and obey them? Why can't an action you enjoy be good? Ayn Rand's entire philosophy as revealed in Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead is that selfish is a virtue and the only moral way to act. In fact, Ayn Rand openly criticizes religion for advocating altruism. Is my opponent advocating the views of the pedophile over not only society but the child? Here is a breach in my opponent's argument. If the happiness of the pedophile conflicts with the happiness of the child, who wins out? This also applies to murder. The murderer's happiness conflicts with his victim's, but neither - if we adopt my opponent's reasoning - exist to the other. In this instance, it would make more sense to choose the avenue more beneficial to society. My opponent drops his forced perspective argument. "Sacrifice for your ultimate good is not a moral act." Sacrifice for your own good is a relative moral act. "If there were an objective standpoint then you wouldn't be more valuable." I believe there can be. Humans are capable of thinking outside of themselves even without the existence of God. I repeat that your perspective on your reality is then negated by scientific evidence. My tragedy of the commons appeals to prudence and morality. To an egotist, it makes sense to use all of the resource now, or at least to maximize his or her benefits from it. How can a moral scenario suddenly concern others when they do not exist or are only shadows? This is a contradiction in my opponent's argument. "I would like to point out that I do not reject the possibility of a lack of absolute morality with a God." My opponent concedes his entire resolution here. His reasons for adding God attempt to minimalize God's relevance, but because of the resolution, God is central to this debate. If my opponent concedes this point, then I win the debate. I took this debate because of God's centrality within the resolution. If my opponent wanted to debate within an "atheistic" framework, God should not have been part of the resolution. Otherwise all my opponent and I can really do is agree on the relativity of morality. You are welcome for the stimulating debate! I'm finding it quite enjoyable as well. I look forward to round 3! [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.aipmm.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...