Naturalism provides a more plausible explanation for objective morality than God.

I will try to be as clear, un-confusing and straight forward as my opponent has been. This round I will not be directing any effort into proving that naturalism is not a plausible explanation for objective morality, in accordance with the debate set-up. I will only be making a case as to why God is a plausible explanation for morality. Next round I will attempt to refute my opponents case and show that God is a more plausible cause than naturalism, rather than just is a plausible cause. Thus, I will only be presenting my case this round. I need not direct any effort into proving Gods existence, just as my opponent has not made an attempt to prove naturalism. This would be to confuse the meaning of the word "plausible". What I need to prove is that God's existence is a plausible explanation for morality such so that it is more plausible than naturalism. Plausible, defined by Merriam Webster dictionary, is, "appearing worthy of belief"[1] (viewers please acknowledge this definition is not binding as it has only just been presented and my opponent has yet to agree/disagree on it). Thus I have to prove that God being the cause of objective morality, appears worthy of belief. It is my contention that God offers a very plausible explanation for morality. What makes my opponents case a tougher one to prove is that he has much more of a burden, to prove that naturalism CAN account for morality, whereas the question of whether God could cause morality if He existed is an obvious one. The contention against my case will most likely rest elsewhere. We now have to deal with the question of how we determine God a worthy proposition for objective morality. To do this I will offer three questions in which I think it necessary for my assertions to meet the requirements. After this round I will also likely submit my opponents moral views to the same questions. The three questions: 1. Could God cause objective morality?2. What type of morality could/would exist if God was the cause?3. Does this type of morality exist? Could God cause objective morality? I am interested to see what my opponent has to say about this, because I have yet to meet an atheist or anyone for that matter, who would entertain the idea that God could not cause objective morality. The general view of God is that His powers are either unlimited or subject to very minimal limitation. God is the supreme ruler of the universe. Thus He is either a maximally great being or at least highly powerful. Thus the things that He COULDN'T do would be very limited. Thus we can postulate that God could cause objective morality. The only way I can see my opponent refuting this would be if he contended that it would some how, contradict Gods nature for Him to cause morality. If so, that would be interesting, but again, I foresee no disagreements. So in conclusion God having the ability to cause morality will likely not be an issue. This will probably be a much strong contention against the naturalistic view of morality my opponent has taken, but I need to leave that for the next round. What type of morality could/would exist if God was the cause? As God is the supreme ruler, the type of morality in which He could cause would be almost unlimited. However we can also infer what type of morality would be likely to exit if God was the cause, and our results, I think we can extrapolate, support my case. A likely moral code in which God would create for humans would be one in which we naturally possess, within the construct of our being. Not a morality in which we generalize absolutes by use of logical syllogism, but one in which we simply know moral facts by sense or intuition. The action of pounding your fists into a child's face, an analogy my opponent uses, has been universally considered by normal persons (therefore excluded maniacs, and those with mental disabilities) for centuries as a morally wrong thing to do. Morality is something that humans are naturally in-tune with Hence "moral code". This sort of objective morality is somewhat analogous to sense perception. There is not much of a categorical difference between moral and sense perception. Our sense perceptions are often prima facie reliable. They allow us to perceive facts and make judgments. Hearing a sound behind me allows me to reason that someone is approaching. My sense perception allowed me to perceive a certain fact, just as our moral sense allows us to perceive certain facts. This is the exact type of morality in which God would be likely to cause. Now we are brought to the exclusively important question, Does this type of morality exist? I assume my opponent will strongly try to negate this question, however I will strongly affirm it. It is indeed evident that this type of morality does in fact exist. Human beings possess advanced cognitive faculties, and everything suggests that we possess the natural ability to differentiate between right and wrong, which would not be the naturalistic view of morality. I have already partially dealt with this question in the previous paragraph. Moral perception is comparable to sense perception. We can deduce certain facts, not logically but naturally. I can recognize signals from my sense of smell, and touch, just as I can recognize facts that my moral sense gives me. We cannot hold the view that our senses are incredibly untrustworthy. In fact to deny a moral sense would be to assert that we, for some reason, own a natural intuition that is entirely and completely flawed. The naturalist needs to answer the puzzling question, why do we have such a strong moral perception if it is entirely untrustworthy? In fact would not the naturalist believe that evolution would have by now eliminated this hindrance? Instead we would be left perplexed on why we as humans reserve such a deceptive and useless natural sense. It is plausible to believe that objective morality, if caused by God, would be something that humans are naturally in-tune with, and that is the exact type of morality that is evident in observation. Denying this fact only brings up opposing questions. For to negate this you would have to argue that we possess a highly, unreliable, deceptive and useless natural instinct, when there is no explanation through naturalism as to why we it naturally exists with in us. Thus God offers us the only plausible explanation for objective morality. Re-CapI have shown that God could be the cause of objective morality. I have shown what type of morality would be likely to exist if God was the cause. I have shown that that type of morality does indeed exist, and naturalism could not account for it. Thus I have shown that God is a plausible explanation for morality, and in the future rounds I will make more effort into outweighing my opponents case rather than just presenting my own. I hand it over to the pro. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...