A Christian and Athiest discussion on the existence of a Moral Transcended Being.

So this is a transcript of a debate that I had on Face book with a good friend and fraternity brother of mine on the existence of God and Can there be a Moral Transcended Being. My views will be labeled Torrie and will be in Italic form. My friends views will be labeled Atheist. Most of my arguments are not my own invention but of what I have studied and read over the years from many Christian Philosophers and writers like C.S. Lewis, Dr. Norman L. Geisler, Dr. William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias and others. I’m a huge fan of Dr. William Lane Craig who is a leading Christian Philosopher, Apologists and debater. So many of my arguments are based off of his teachings and the teachings of others that I have studied over the past few years on God’s existence. Hope you are encouraged by this.

So this whole discussion between my friend and I started when I made the statement :If atheism is true and God doesn't exist ,then moral absolutes don't exist. If moral absolutes don't exist then all of the evil that was committed by Hitler ,Stalin ,certain religions ,slavery ,genocide ,the present day abortions that ...are carried on and etc. are not really evil but just products of evolution taking it's course and this life is all about survival of the fittest succeeding....and so our discussion began with his response:

Atheist: If all morality stems from God, then it extends that people are only moral because they fear punishment -- not out of any basic goodness inside them. I don't think you would agree with that for yourself, much less any of the other good people you know. I'm an atheist, but I think that I can find reasons to justify morality. Perhaps not *absolute* morality, but morals nonetheless.... I'm not saying this as an attack on your religion, but a defense of my own views. Just for the record.

Torrie: I don't think that's true because there are people who don't believe in God and believe that rape ,murder ,racism etc is wrong and that morality is good ,that doesn't explain away God. What reason could you find to justify morality if there aren't any moral absolutes. I mean you have to start with the question why. Why is it wrong to kill ,rape. I believe that atheism can't give a good valid reason for wanting to be moral ,because if there aren't any moral absolutes or absolute truth ,then deep down what real reason does anyone have to do anything good? By the way I'm not offended bro, I love ya man!

Atheist: I think you misunderstood me a touch. :) I wasn't suggesting that you can explain away God by separating morals. Just saying, if (for example) suddenly tomorrow everyone in the world woke up -knew- (I stress, example) that there was no God, the people who had believed in God the day before would not run out into the streets and become murderers and rapists. And yes, just like you said, lots of people who are atheists still believe that rape, murder, etc is wrong. So what we're saying is that, even in the absence of God (or the absence of believing in God) people have *some* sense of morals. Now, about atheism: Atheism can't give a moral reason for anything, because Atheism doesn't address that. All I am saying as an Atheist is that I don't believe in God (of any variety). So coming up with the reasons for not doing evil things comes from different sources. For example, I believe that I will only be alive once. No afterlife, no reincarnation. Therefore murdering someone is wrong because I am taking away the only life they will have. If someone murdered me, they are taking away the only life I will have. That's wrong. I can justify a lot of other things too. Rape is wrong, just like stabbing someone or beating someone would be wrong, because they hurt people BADLY. I wouldn't want that to happen to me, so I shouldn't do it to someone else. Furthermore, I shouldn't stand by and let it happen to someone else because that is just about as bad as doing it. Atheism gets a bad name (and some atheists help give it a bad name) but really, all it is saying is: I don't believe what can't be scientifically demonstrated to me. It doesn't necessarily pave the way for the downfall of all society.

Torrie:"So what your saying is that, even in the absence of God (or the absence of believing in God) people have *some* sense of morals". I have heard this argument before by many atheist like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. So in essence what you are saying is that human beings are really the foundation of moral values by the examples that you state for not doing evil things. That sounds more like a humanistic argument or point of view. That view believes that human beings are the measure of all things and not God, but the problem that I see with that argument is that you still can't justify your starting point. I mean why should I not murder someone and your answer is "Therefore murdering someone is wrong because I am taking away the only life they will have. If someone murdered me, they are taking away the only life I will have. That's wrong". I mean why consider the life of someone else or just because you don't want the same done to you. I mean after all on an atheistic view we are all just animals just advanced primates. Why should human flourishing be the absolute good rather than the flourishing of some other animal. To say that human flourishing is the absolute good is to be guilty of speciesism I mean it's sort of like racism(I'm not implying you are), being in favor of your own species as somehow standing out as special. Of course in the absence of God it's hard to see any reason to think that the herd morality that is being evolved around us isn't objective and valid. This view still doesn't justify it's starting point. In the absence of God why think that the starting point for your objective morality is in fact the true basis? Here's another thought. If we are just highly evolved primate animals and animals don't have morals I mean when a lion kills a zebra it doesn't commit murder there is no standard for any morality in the animal kingdom or if that same lion forces sexual population on a female lion we can't call that rape. Animals don't have morals and if we are just highly evolved animals and there is no God we can't say something is murder or rape but we do believe that rape and murder is wrong and as a theist I have a basis to believe why that is wrong in my Christian world view in the existence of God who transcends society ,culture and biological evolution. So the question stands again if God doesn't exist then on the atheistic view why would rape or murder be morally objectively wrong?

Atheist: :) It makes me smile to talk about this with someone who has done some reading. Yes, it is definitely more of a humanistic point of view. See I see it the other way. You're telling me the only reason I shouldn't run out and murder someone is because (not trying to be condescending) there's an invisible man in the sky who says I shouldn't. That almost suggests that what I really want is to run out and murder someone right now, but that I'm afraid of the consequences. When really I don't want that (just like I know you don't want that). You don't not-kill people because you're afraid of God. The reason you don't do it is because it's wrong and from my point of view, establishing morals based on something other than the existence of God doesn't serve as proof against God. It's not really even an argument. It just says that we can find lots reasons to do the right thing. And if you choose to believe in God, then you can simply see God's word as an endorsement of that.
Highly evolved animals? I suppose. Technically, I can't give a reason that human flourishing should supercede the flourishing of another animal. However that doesn't mean I have to give up my life carelessly. If I came face to face with a lion, I wouldn't be wrong for killing it (nor it me). Even the law of the jungle says it's ok for me to fight to win. Advancing my own life to the fullest is justified in nature. The male lion tries to eat the best, be the strongest, have the best pride. As does every other animal (and plant, so to speak). Everything that is alive seeks to thrive. So I don't really need to establish that my life or human life is more important than animal life. Truthfully, we're all in competition. Humans just have a massive advantage and in that regard, if I saw a lion attacking a child, I would try to save the child. For lots of reasons, but at the very bottom of the list you could say: us vs them. We have a distinction that the animals don't and that is our ability to make decisions. The animals survive based on instinct. So the animals don't have morals, but they also don't commit acts egregiously. IE, the lion kills a zebra to eat. Not because it caught the zebra in bed with his lioness. Nor because it thinks that zebras are evil and need to be wiped off the face of the earth. Without spending all my time talking up what we already know-- we are different from the animals. We have an intelligence that lets us make decisions besides things like "I'm hungry so I need to kill that zebra" or "I need to reproduce, so I'm going to jump on that lioness". We as people are smart enough to survive WITHOUT such actions. I don't have to look at you and say "Well, I need food and Torrie has food. So I guess I'll kill Torrie to get his food." I could just say "Can I have some food?" or "Hey, where'd you get that food?" and we can both survive and be happy. And since I have that decision making ability, I should use that ability and opting not to use that ability is immoral. So I just don't agree that there is no standard. The standard is there by itself. I can make decisions. If I can make a decision where I prosper without causing you to suffer I should make that decision. "In the absence of God why think that the starting point for your objective morality is in fact the true basis?"

I'm saying:...
1) There is evidence that people act morally in the absence of God. (And immorally in the presence of God.)
2) We as people can (and do) define morals by a sort of congress of agreement. So the morality may not be "absolute" (because there may be exceptions) but it can still be morality. (The Bible provides exceptions to the rules in a lot of cases. Example: Thou Shalt Not Kill, but there are a lot of cases where that didn't apply.)Examples of people defining morals by consensus:
1) It was once permissible (among whites) in the South to mistreat a black person simply because of the color of his skin.
2) It has been illegal and immoral to consume alcohol of any sort (prohibition) in the history of the US.
3) Dancing (of any sort) has been deemed appropriate and inappropriate in many times and places throughout history.
4) Foul language changes. I remember when you could not say ass or shit on television, but that is greatly different now. Once upon a time my grandmother would fuss at me for using the word "Dang" because it was offensive.
Now some of these things ARE defined as immoral by God, but many people define these things as socially acceptable. Some of these things have been appropriate and inappropriate according to God on many cases (dancing being the main example.) I'm glad to find someone I can have a discussion with that doesn't downgrade into a name-calling match. :)

Torrie: Ok when I say that you don’t have to believe in God to know that morality is good and that rape and murder is wrong it’s because I’m referring to the fact that as a theist I would expect an atheist or anyone else to have knowledge of morality because we all have a God given conscience,"it's written on their hearts" (Romans 2:14&15). #1 I still have a problem with how you as an atheist can claim to have a non-divine transcended ground for moral values but yet you live as tho there are moral objective values . This type of view claims that moral values are not grounded in God but just exist as some type of abstract thing or some herd mentality.or as you would call a “congress of agreement”. So what your saying is that moral values like mercy, justice, loyalty, compassion that these just exist? Dude I have to confess that I find it very difficult to comprehend this view nor have I heard any atheist give a good logical answer for it. I mean I understand what it means to say that a person is just or that some action is just but to make the claim that these morals can exist outside of a moral transcended being seems to me a weak argument. Second the nature of moral duty or obligation is incompatible with your view. Lets suppose that moral values like mercy ,justice and love just exist. How does that result in any moral obligation for me. I mean who or what imposes upon me the duty to be loving ,compassionate ,merciful and etc? How does just the existence of these abstract values result in any moral duty or obligation for me to do or live in a certain way. Plus there are other abstract values in this view that exist as well cruelty ,greed ,selfishness. Those would exist as well in your view. What obligates me to align my self with one set of values over another. Now if your going to say for the good of society or that I don’t get treated the same way well that has no bearing in that world view. It seems to me there isn’t any basis for moral duty. You can’t make sense of this with an atheistic world view. As a theist I can make since of my moral duties because we believe that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” ,”You shall not murder” ,”You shall not steal”. In the absence of any divine law giver there aren’t any grounds for moral obligation or moral duty. Third it is highly improbable that just those sort of moral creatures would emerge from the blind evolutionary process through billions of years of random selection and chance that we would evolve to be moral. I mean this would be totally improbable it’s as if the moral realm knew that these creatures were coming but of course it can’t know on an atheistic view but on the view that God exists both the moral realm and the natural realm are under the sovereignty of God. In atheism the natural realm and the moral realm fall apart they are independent of each other. It would be totally improbable that these two realms by accident would just happen to mesh in producing by the blind evolutionary process that type of creature to whom these moral values and duties would exist. Here’s a good example: Genghis Khan who by all accounts lived an extremely successful life, in other words he conquered all of central Asia, he plundered what we would consider billions of dollars, he sired over a hundred children from different women, he lived up to his seventies and lived what some people would call a successful life and yet he was a mass murderer, plunderer and thief but if your world view is correct and God doesn’t exist and we make up our own moral values then by all accounts he was very successful and we should strive to be like him. Now I'm sure we could tossle back and forth philosophical arguments of theism vs. atheism but you still have to deal with the other arguments for God’s existence in the other realms of science like the Cosmological argument(which includes the Big Bang Theory), the Teleological argument(the fine tuning of the universe) and the Biochemical arguments(the complexity of our DNA, of proteins, amino acids and the necessary ingredients for life to begin on a hostile planet). In the end I am convinced that most atheist have a wrong unbiblical view of God. I haven't met any atheist who has read thru the bible with a true discerning heart. I mean this in all love. The God of the bible is not some genocidal maniac who is just looking for any opportunity to strike people dead and send someone to hell but on the contrary God wants us to be reconciled to himself and he has made a way possible thru faith in his son Jesus Christ. The whole bible is all about Jesus, about how our sins can be forgiven and how God shows his mercy and love towards us, who would rather curse him and live our own lives being trying to be our own Gods. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16. “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”. 2Corinthians 5:18-21..... Love ya bro.

Atheist: I think we've reached the limits of things, because I can see you understand my arguments and I understand yours. From my perspective, it is very shaky to stack all of morality on God's existence, because if God isn't there, then the whole house of cards crumbles. From your perspective, building it without the foundation of a God who commands us to be moral is like building a house on a foundation of water and so obviously people must make their choice for what they believe and choose to live a life based on that....