The Laws of Morality Prove Creator

In the evolutionary worldview there is no logical reason to believe in moral imperatives. Right and wrong are nothing but electro-chemical reactions in the brain — the result of time and chance. The concept of right and wrong is meaningful, however, so evolution cannot be true. Right and wrong are Christian concepts that started in Genesis. This is not saying that Evolutionists are not moral, but they are moral because Creation is true. 

If the Bible is not true, if human beings were merely the outworking of millions of years of mindless chemical processes, then why should we hold to a universal code of behavior? Could there really be such concepts as right and wrong if evolution were true?

The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3). All things belong to God (Ps. 24:1), and thus God has the right to make the rules. So an absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.

Pro has plagiarized his entire round verbatim from an external source, in this case from the book

So I am going to presume that you are saying that morality is subjective. If it is subjective then how do you know murder is wrong? Maybe it is right? Maybe murder in certain circumstances is right? If you do not have objective morality then murder could be a good thing, depending on what your objective is. Also lying could be useful to survive in the workplace at the home or other circumstances. If morality is subjective then who is to say anything is really wrong. It could be right for you, but not for me.

Also one could totally have a different view of morality than their parents. A parent could teach their child that homosexuality is immoral and the child could change his opinion that it is right. Well, who has the correct morality? And Why? There could be no way of absolutely knowing that in a subjective moral world.

You use the example of murder in society as an example of it not benefiting a society and actually harming it. Let me ask was Nazi Germany harmed for its mass murder of people? How about cannibals their society was never harmed for their practices. What about the Aztecs? Or Mao, or Stalin? All these places were not harmed for their mass genocide.

0.) Plagurism.

Pro completely drops the charge of plagiarism. Pro also does not even acknowledge that he dishonestly copy and pasted someone else’s arguments in R1.

As pro has not offered an argument to support his position, pro has not met his burden of proof.

1.) No such thing as moral law

Morality is learned and based on an individuals ability to empathize: both of which can be changed and modified. Pro does not contest these points, or the evidence I provided to support it.

As morality is based on empathy, many decisions are largely sensible and the same for all humans  (we don’t want to be murdered, so empathy implies we will find murder to be wrong).

There are limits to this: murder is okay in self defence, in parts of military operations, and the murder of innocents is okay if an intentional bombing campaign accidentally kills people. Even murdering babies - killing a random baby is bad, killing baby hitler, probably not so much : this is to say that even in the case of murder that pro argues is universally bad is quite obviously a complex moral topic that everyone differs upon.

Pro claims that in a subjective system that there is no objective way to determine whether any individual morality is better then any other.

In presupposing that there is an objective way to determine one morality is better than other, pro is begging the very question he must prove as part of the resolution.

Pro cannot presuppose his moral law into existence; if pro feels there is an objective moral law that can be used to tell whether my morality is better or worse than yours: pro should explain what it is, how he can tell it’s valid, and how it is separate and distinct from any individual humans subjective morality. 

2.) Evolutionary imperative

In the last round I showed a valid evolutionary benefit of morality.

Pro asks : “You use the example of murder in society as an example of it not benefiting a society and actually harming it. Let me ask was Nazi Germany harmed for its mass murder of people? How about cannibals their society was never harmed for their practices. What about the Aztecs? Or Mao, or Stalin? All these places were not harmed for their mass genocide.”

None of these examples are the small social groupings of animals, in which murder, or disruptive behaviour within the group would lead to potential collapse of the entire group and the death or harm of its members - and thus would present an evolutionary imperative.

Thus pros argument is really a straw man, as it is dealing with a misrepresentation of my position (that any murder will harm any society and thus must be immoral, rather than that murder in a small group can harm that group and provides evolutionary pressure for morality).

Pro does however shoot himself in the foot: The aztecs, Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Cannibals and the immoral behaviour of people is all largely explained by my thesis:

If morality was objective and universal - humans almost all invariably and repeatedly acted immorally knowing that their behaviour and actions were wrong, which does not explain how so many people over such a long period could all act so ubiquitously immoral, only for us now to have managed to work out what we should do.

If morality is subjective and mutable, good people can easily be driven to bad actions by the ability to suppress or suspend empathy against another group - leading to both moral changes over time, and cases where a society may commit atrocities.

Thus it appears clearly the case that morality looks as if it is inherently subjective and not caused by some objective moral edict coming from an external entity.

"murder is okay in self defence, in parts of military operations, and the murder of innocents is okay if an intentional bombing campaign accidentally kills people."

These examples are not actually murder Con just needs to read any dictionary to find that out.

If morals are subjective then there is no reason to have courts of law, because after all one is determining ones own sets of morals. Therefore I can murder or lie in order to get what I want or need to survive. If I need $1000 why not murder people and get what I need? If I am taken to court I just say that survival of the fittest was the reason I murdered.

However, with the God of the Bible, murder is always wrong, for it is taking the life of someone who does not deserve to die. Lying is wrong, no matter the circumstance.

Evolution deals with material things, so my question is how much does hate weigh? Or how long is love measured by? 

I also want to say that in small social groupings of animals say in the jungles of Africa, actually do murder other animals in order to get food. 

Why did humans decide to act cooperatively when evolution is supposed to be about survival of the fittest? Also why does man still need to act cooperatively instead of fitting his way to survive? Or is survival of the fittest off the evolutionary grid?

We can know that the Moral Law exists because it is undeniable. Everyone knows that murder is wrong, even in the most remote of places that had no contact with civilization. Everyone has moral values. Also, we know there is a Moral Law based on our reaction when a Moral Law is violated. All people everywhere have a sense and knowledge of right and wrong. There would be no human rights without a Moral Law. This can be seen when Jefferson wrote that all men have the same unalienable rights given by the Creator. Even the Nazi soldiers who were convicted of mass murder were charged by Moral Laws. All people must know the Moral Law in order to know what is just and unjust. We can only know what is evil because we know what is good and this good is written in our hearts. Only if there is an unchanging standard of good, a universal Moral Law, can we know what good is. We could not judge others morals if there is no Moral Law. In other words, we could not say that what Mother Teresa did was good and what Hitler did was bad because these would be just personal opinions if there is no Moral Law. We could not know the difference between right and wrong without a Moral Law. Political and social dissent could not be based on morals if there is no Moral Law because there would be no objective right or wrong including the positions taken by the Left. Also is there was no Moral Law we could not make excuses for violating it. If no behavior is moral, then why make excuses for it. 

First off, Con has no basis to question God's character since he believes morality is based on a matter of opinion.

Second, Con does not know God's sense of justice and His view of sin. Since God made the Moral Law, He is perfectly right in meeting out the justice that comes as a consequence of breaking His moral law, just like a judge meets out the justice required for breaking laws. That takes care of most of the situations you put out there.

As far as Job, I hope you realize that God did not take His family away, that was clearly Satan that did it.

"genocides, sexual slavery, rape and murders commanded by God"

Please give me example.

Atheism and evolution has only given us more genocides, murder and rape than ever before (i.e., Hitler, racism, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara exct).

1. Every law has a law giver.

2. There is a Moral Law.

3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

"when social creatures first evolve, they would only be successful long term if there was a way of preventing overtly selfish behaviour that was detrimental to the group."

Con is just presuming evolution is true. My belief that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as Cons position. Evolution provides no moral boundaries to constrain peoples actions.

"Love, triggers a variety of hormones relating to changes in the body that drive arousal. Hate triggers a variety of hormones that drive Adrenalin and fighting responses."

One, as far as love, you are talking about it in a sexual sense. The love I am talking about is true love, sacrifice. Also you say love and hate trigger hormones. This may be true, but the question to ask is what triggers love and hate. These are transcendental things, not material.

Voting summary.

Conduct: 

Pro forfeited the last round, plagiarized his opening, failed to acknowledge his lack of attribution, and sources the Bible despite claiming no sources were to be used.

This is clearly poor conduct.

Arguments: 

I have demonstrated that “Moral law” doesn’t exist, that morality is changeable and different from person to person; even on matters of murder and genocide, there is no clear and definitive law.

I have also shown that morality as observed in humans appears to be subjective and based on a combination of learned values and our ability to empathize. 

I have also shown that not only does such a system refute the existence of objective moral law, but it also has an evolutionary imperative that renders it likely without a creator.

Pro drops most of this, and asserts that a moral law exist, and only defends this using a series of objectively false claims - such as even remote tribes thinking murder is wrong, and Gods law is objective and inviolable.

As a result, arguments should clear be given to con.