Below are my questions for my opponent in the “Questions” round of a debate between me and fellow blogger Potnia Theron (a.k.a. Steven) over the existence of God. The debate thus far:
- Round 1: Opening Statements
- Round 2: Rebuttals
- Round 3: Questions
- Maverick Christian
- Potnia Theron (Steven)
- Round 4: Answers
- Round 5: Closing Statements
Question #1: First Premise of the Moral Argument
To recap, the deductive moral argument I used is this:
- If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
- Objective morality does exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
Questions #2 and #3: Moral Ontology
To recap what I said earlier, I noted that either morality exists solely as part of the physical realm, or it exists to at least some degree as part of the nonphysical realm. One of these must be true, because if morality exists neither as part of the physical realm nor as part of the nonphysical realm, then it follows that morality does not exist as part of reality at all. So if morality exists, some moral ontology or other must be true. After I argued that some ontological explanation or other must be true and that moral properties (like moral wrongness) exist as part of the nonphysical realm to at least some degree, I argued that the simplest moral ontology leads us to an eternal, transcendent, metaphysically necessary entity that imposes moral duties upon us with supreme and universally binding authority. You apparently don’t believe God grounds morality, but you have offered no alternative moral ontology. So my next two questions are these: (2) What is your alternative moral ontology; (3) Given the law of parsimony, on what grounds do you believe your alternative moral ontology is better than the one my argument from ontological simplicity offers?