Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

So you're saying we can't trust anyone?Nothing I've said implies that at all. I believe that humans are "moral" beings (ha, get it?), in that the overwhelming majority of people are going to behave according to our social norms. In other words, people aren't going to be assholes just because objective morality doesn't exist.The fact that we are having a conversation about right and wrong proves that there is a moral code that people go by which would then point to a higher lawNo, it really doesn't. We are discussing the abstract concept of morality, that does not prove that an objective code exists. That's like saying discussing unicorns proves that they exist (not in a metaphysical sense, I mean).Except that they are. Like I said earlier, each person has a moral code. The thing is though, they think that everyone else should follow it.Nope. All it takes is one person to prove that wrong, and since I do not believe that everyone else must (or even should) follow my moral code, that one is effectively negated.That would mean that they would think that their moral code is objective and they are the objective law giver.Are you telling me you think that every one of your opinions is objective?The only thing that people do to make it subjective is that this idea applies to everyoneNo, what makes it subjective is the fact that it is based on their personal opinions. The desire to apply it to others does not have any relation to the definition of the word subjective. Someones thoughts or feelings might be different, but that doesn't justify doing something wrong.We aren't talking about justification, we are talking about the concept of morality. Their thoughts or feelings are what will determine if they think they are justified in doing something, and whether or not it is right or wrong.Thats not evidence of unjustified killing. Thats evidence of people trying to justify what they did, but that doesn't mean that unjustly killing someone isn't still wrongOkay, do you know what the definition of the word "justify" is? "To show to be just or right". The act of justifying is an individual trying to convey that they believe what they did was right. That means that these people believe what they did was right, while others do not. Both sides believe they have morality on their side, and in many cases, there is no clear answer as to which is right. Just because different cultures have a different way of looking at things, that doesn't mean that morality is subjective. Its always wrong to unjustly kill someone.Repeating that over and over does not make it a universally held truth.What different countries find out is if the person was unjust in their killingI feel like part of this sentence got cut off.The fact that they are even discussing right and wrong shows that there is an objective right and wrong that exists outside of themselves. Otherwise, trials would be completely unnecessaryYou have repeated this claim like a dozen times without providing a single logical justification for it's conclusion. There is no logical way in which the simple discussion of morality proves objective morality exists. One can argue that it proves that the concept of morality exists outside of ourselves, which, I mean, duh, but it does not prove that objective morality exists in any way.The fact that we have a legal system to determine whether or not what someone did was right or wrong shows that there is an objective moralityAnd again, there is no logical link here. We as a society have come together through processes to determine what actions the state will allow or forbid. That has no link to objective morality.Except that it is though. No where in the world will you find murder to be legal. What you find is a different understanding of what is considered murderWe aren't talking about legality, we are talking about morality. You can easily find places in which what we consider to be murder is considered morally acceptable. Take the Sentinelse people, for example, or certain tribes in New Guinea.You yourself said that we lack evidence for this subject. I did provide you evidence in the replies that I gave you.No you didn't, you begged the question and made claims with no epistemological backing.If you honestly think that there is no evidence for it, then really are just being intellectually dishonest, not giving due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy. And again you are just being an ass. I disagree that what you provided with evidence, and now you are saying "agree with me or I'll insult you". That's pathetic.If you think that the evidence I gave you is weak or poor, that is different than saying that there is NO evidence whatsoeverAgain, I do not believe that what you have provided constitutes evidence at all, for the reasons I have previously said. Pull this "Agree with me or I will insult you" shit again and I'm out.