The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

The intellectual dishonesty runs deep with this one. Two huge pieces of intellectual dishonesty, trying to use the mathematical definition of sound rather then philosophical. Here is the philosophical definition. Sound= A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. http://www.iep.utm.edu... The second piece of intellectual dishonesty comes in trying to sneak god as having the characteristics of only being transcendent. That is not god, god is more then transcendent. As in my example if objective moral fairies exist they would clearly not be god. None of the fairies on their own could possibly create objective morals, it takes all of them working together. They are also incapable of doing much more then creating objective morality, this is clearly not god, by any definition other then an intellectually dishonest one. My opponent shoots himself in the foot by claiming to be arguing for a deistic god. That is a huge issue as a deist god is not just transcendent but the creator of the universe. Objective moral fairies are not the creators of the universe, just the cause of objective morality. Now to return to our definition of sound: A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound So my argument as that idiot cerebral and my opponent fail to see is that Premise 1 of the moral argument is simply not actually true. Premise 1 is: 1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists Last I checked if objective moral fairies exist without god, objective morals exist. Therefore premise 1 is false. Premise 1 clearly implies that if objective moral facts exist, god is necessary. Since my opponent has refused to defend against other supernatural causes of objective morality, we can clearly say that premise 1 is in no way true. It is clear that my opponent wants to assume god is the only cause of objective morality, he is using his own fallacy, that he calls me on, to eliminate other supernatural causes. At the end of the day Premise 1 is an unfounded assertion based on indoctrination and not actually true. Since in Philosophy the premises must actually be true to be sound and we have no reason to believe what so ever that objective morality makes god necessary, then it is not sound. Here is my argument in syllogism form: Objective moral fairies can exist without god if objective moral fairies exist objective morality exists Objective morality can exist without god That directly contradicts the first premise that if objective morality exists god exists. Night night thanks for playing, it was funny seeing my opponent fall for such a blatant god of the gaps fallacy. Again I repeat, it cannot both be true that objective morality makes god necessary, yet can exist without god. That is a blatant contradiction. My opponent opened the door to supernatural explanations for morality, now he doesn't like the results. I also want to reiterate that my opponent is straw manning his own position, he went from saying that the argument was for god, to only a transcendent being. Then he further contradicts himself by claiming he is arguing for a deistic god which has other features, that are common to god. I think that says all that needs to be said about my opponent, he tried to cheat his was to an transcendent being, then glaim that must be god, full well knowing god is more then just a transcendent being.