Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

You see the stuff in front of you and are using it. That is proof it exists.What I see in front of me is morals that differ from culture to culture and from time to time. Is that proof that subjective morality exists? It certainly isn't evidence for an objective one.its not my job to provide evidence for someone else's claim.The original question was raised by Deli_Subs - "Without God there is no Objective Morality just differing opinions. This debate I will not intervene at all nor will I leave a link to strengthen my argument."You chose to defend the position that objective morality exists: "What I mean by objectively moral is that something is right or wrong regardless of how I may think or feel. Some of the proof is in the fact that everyone would say that some things are right or wrong."Therefore, the onus of defending the claim that objective morality does exist is yours.Russell's teapotNo, Russell's teapot/onus probandi does not only apply to things that can be proven/disproven scientifically. Do you believe I have an incorporeal, perpetually flying, heatless-fire breathing dragon in my garage because it can't be disproven scientifically? Or, that there is a unicorn at the center of the sun? etc.Things like truth, morality, and freedom would have no rational reason to existSure they would - groups are stronger than individuals, and group dynamics requires a certain level of honesty, etc. Therefore, evolution favored these traits.yo have to assume that there is no need to improveIf one believes they have been given an objective moral code from god, they would have no reason to improve. If people know they are imperfect and that they only have a subjective perspective on things, they may be more persuadable.We as a country used to own slaves, but don't anymore and in fact forbid it.Slavery and indentured servitude still exist many places in the world. ref refHuman rights didn't change.Did rights for women change? Did we not think them human?This is a difference in the understanding of rape rather than moralityDifference in understanding is what subjective means.Whats different is peoples definition of justDifference definition of just is what subjective means.Abortion being considered self-defenseAgain - whether abortion is self-defense is better handled in a separate debate.Please address when self-defense is justified killing and when is it murder. If someone is stealing food from your refrigerator can you kill them? What if they are stealing your TV?A difference in understanding of what constitutes murder does not mean that morality is subjective.That is exactly what it means.Murder is still wrong even if someone does a mercy killing.So, if a person has a terminal disease and is in chronic pain and wishes to die, but they can't do it themselves - killing them is objectively murder?Necessity, spying, and eminent domain are not just causes for the unlawful taking of something that isn't yoursSays who? Since humans allow all of those things.Just because someone tries to justify a wrong doing by redefining it, that doesn't make what they do any less wrongAgain - different understandings and justifications and relative weighing of the factors involved is exactly what subjective is.An objective morality makes it wrong regardless of whether or not someone like me or someone else thinks soYou are left with 2 possibilities - either an objective morality does not exist, or it exists in a way that humans cannot reliably access it. Making it either non-existent, or worthless.Its either nonexistent/unnattainable or it isn't.It can be unattainable for one and rational for another - because it is subjective.