Morality is Grounded in God.

I shall begin with the Moral argument for the existence of God. P1. Morality is a rational enterprise P2. Moral Realism is true, Meaning moral facts and duties exist P3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume that moral realism is grounded in a human source of rationality. P4. Premises 1, 2, And 3 confirm that Moral realism is grounded in a source of necessity. P5. The source of necessity is what we call God (refer to video in Premise four) Con. Therefore, God exists. Is P1 sound? Yes, It is because Morality is deciphered through reason and logic. Just like mathematics and philosophical positions. We know that Morality cannot be based on naturalistic principles because you won't get moral and ethical truths through empirical testings. If someone is about to hurt someone else we cannot know how we ought to act. We can only reason that we do not act in a certain way. Confirming our first Premise. If the debate reaches that point I will address those who object to this aka those who support to non-cognitivism. Is the second premise sound? Yes, It is and hears why. Now before I defend Moral realism I would like to define Moral realism. Moral realism defined is summed up like this Moral realism is true even if no one believes it just like the laws of logic or the laws of physics. Moral realism is independent of Human Cognition but we can tap into moral realism using our cognition. Doing this will help us better operate in reality. I will be defending Moral Realism 5 points. As with all philosophical arguments, I not here to provide proof that moral realism exists but that instead, It is more likely than unlikely. So let us begin. #1 The Argument from Epistemic Realism Philosophy Professor Dr. Terence Cuneo P1. If Moral facts don't exist, Then epistemic facts don't exist P2. Epistemic facts do exist Con #1: Moral facts exist P3. If moral facts exist, Moral realism is true Con #2: Moral Realism is true. The problem identified is thus how can the skeptic uphold epistemic oughts but deny moral oughts when the two are almost identical. Here an example. Let us say were are debating whether the minimum wage should be raised, In the debate, One should and will assume that the other will uphold epistemic duties such as not misrepresenting statements, Not make logical fallacies, And being honest. The person prescribes epistemic duties and expects for them to be upheld but that is exactly the problem. Why should I uphold these things if they are all relative? The individual argues for epistemic truths while saying they are subjective let through their demands reaffirms epistemic truths and thus reaffirms moral truths. For example, Affirming intellectual honest affirms moral honesty. The next argument for Moral Realism is Experience. It is almost impossible to find an individual who lives out Moral relativism. Jean-Paul Satre was a Moral relativist but argued for action against human genocide. He said that he choose this position himself but why would he attempt to force his views on others who disagree? If it's all subjective then why does it matter when it comes to how we treat people if it doesn't affect you. Why do some moral relativist claim it is wrong to enslave women in other countries when it does directly or indirectly affect them? Do other cultures not have the right to decide what is moral? Yet no one lives like that. If someone says that something is right or wrong it means that they are affirming Moral realism. This shows that all humans subconsciously have come to realize that there is a moral reality independent of our control. The argument from experience can be summed up in three Premises. P1. If Moral Realism is false people would not live like it is true P2. People do live like Moral Realism is true C. Moral Realism is true Okay so onto the argument from the Problem of Moral Disagreement. We do not only act as if moral realism is true, We also converse as if certain moral principles are true. If non-realism is true then we have to accept genital mutilation or the values of the KKK as equal to that of those who oppose such things. In other words, These are non-debatable moral principles. Common sense shows that both cannot be right and wrong but must be one or the other and therefore logical deduction confirms this argument. On to the argument from Moral progress and Convergence. This argument can only work with Moral realism. The majority of people no longer think it is okay to enslave other ethnicities or kill other people for fun. If we consider this progress it would on work if we believe we are working towards an objective moral standard and not just arbitrarily changing morality. Just as Science slowly shows us how the Universe works. Moral Realism slowly shows us what ought to be right and wrong. So what about the cultural disagreement argument against moral realism? Moral Convergence seems o address this argument which is not really an argument against Moral Realism. For example, Different cultures have different views on whether the Earth is round or flat but that doesn't mean that Science is subjective and we don't know the objective shape of the Earth. You see cultural differences on moral issues is not a moral debate but a factual one. For example, African tribes believe that it is wrong to murder infants unless they are deformed because they believe the deformed infant was caused by spirits. They have factual errors. It is their beliefs about facts that cause them to act a certain way not beliefs about morality. When given the facts cultures tend to agree on certain moral principles as objectively true. So the premise for the argument is P1. If Moral Realism is false, Moral progress and convergence would not be possible P2. Moral progress and convergence is possible C. Moral Realism true. The final argument I will present is the argument for Intuition. Moral facts are self-evident. How do we know? If a child is tortured no sensible person will look at that and say that is just how others see the world and we should move on. No, We would demand that such must be stopped and justice must be done. Why because Morality is objective and real as well as self-evident and intuitive and is our starting point. The burden lies on the skeptic to show our intuitions are wrong, Not the moral realist. So what about P3. Is it sound? Yes, It is we cannot be the source of moral knowledge because we are not perfect beings and Hitler is a great example. We also do not know fully about moral facts. We fail to perform moral duties. We are also contingent beings (refer to Contingency argument for further explanation). For example, We discovered the laws of logic and mathematics but we did not make them. 2+2=4 even if no human exists. P3 follows logically from P1 and 2. Becuase we are contingent and fail to follow moral laws. Logical deduction shows us that P1 and 2 confirm that morality must be grounded in a necessary and rational source. The source must also be sentient. P4 is therefore confirmed. So the basis for morality must be A conscious rational necessary entity who would serve as the foundation for morality and whom we would like to for moral guidance. Logical deduction leads us to P5. If Moral Realism is true then the source for Morality is God simply using logical deduction we can confirm this. So what about the Conclusion is it sound? Yes the Ontology of Moral Realism (Ontology being the metaphysical study of the nature of being) grounds morality in a conscious rational necessary entity to whom the title of God is given. Let me give you an example when Chemist discovered that water was H2O they didn't merely stipulate that one was the other but rather they discovered that the terms mean the same thing. You see Good=God and God=Good. Moralism realism must be ground in unchanging beings and this is important as it shows that the moral argument can only be used to defend the existence of a Monotheistic God who is omniscience, Omnipotent and omnipresent. My final statement is based on whether morality comes from evolution. This most likely didn't happen and even if it did it does not disprove moral realism. The moral argument is about the foundation for moral values and duties not how we came to k ow those truths. Moral epistemology deals with how we came to know moral values. As Dr. Frank Turek argues Moral laws are not chemical or biological: they are immaterial and come from personal agents. Chemistry and Biology are descriptive, Not prescriptive; evolution describes what does survive, Not what ought to survive. He preceded to give an example of rape and murder and how evolution would see moral changes in the name of human survival. If P2 of the Moral argument is sound than evolution can't account for morality. I will give one last syllogism for Round 1. The argument from evil which I made. P1. There exist Objective Good and Objective Evil as the two pathways of Objective Morality P2. Objective Evil is the absence of Objective Good P3. Atheism cannot give a basis for the ontology of Objective Morality P4. Theism can Con. Therefore God exists A quick defence as I have limited space. Refer to my defence of P2 of the moral argument to see why P1 of this argument is sound. Evil is the absence of Good just like darkness is the absence of Light and cold the absence of heat and vice versa. P3 and 4 are shown by the Moral argument therefore P5 is sound and true. If brought up and if the debate continues I will discuss the argument for moral intuitions. I shall await your rebuttal.