The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

ResolutionPro says "The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists and IF there isn't a God, then objective morality doesn't exist. "Pro is right on the first part "The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. " but wrong on the second part "In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists and IF there isn't a God, then objective morality doesn't exist"Pro confuses a necessary pre condition with a possible consequence. Ill give illustration to show the difference. In order to get wet, a necessary pre condition is that water exists. But this does not equate to that if water exists you will get wet, you might get wet, or you might not. Like wise if God is a necessary pre condition for objective morality to exist this does not equate that if objective morality exists then God MUST exist, God might exist or God might not. The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist = Objective morality can ONLY exist if God exists Compare this to Pros claim which is "God is necessary for objective morality to exist = In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality existsIts not enough to prove that objective morality exists in order to affirm the resolution, you have to prove that objective morality can ONLY exist if God exists. Even if objective morality is proven true, and even if God is shown to be a possible prioir condition, this isn't enough, because in order to affirm the resolution it has to be shown that God is a NECESSARY prior condition for the existence of objective morality, not just a possible prior condition for the existence of objective morality. I think Pro put it best where they said "The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. " Well said Pro. .. .. .. .. .. but not the other bit :)Countering Pros argumentsPro makes some points about the definition of God being compatible with the Christian concept of God. Ok but what does this prove ? Pro says "According to the Bible, which is true if the Christian god is real, God says that there are things that are objectively right or wrong. "I would like to point out there is alot of different "Christian" Gods out there. For example the christian God that sent hurricane katrina too punish poor black people and or homosexuals, the christian God that sent the hurricane for other sins or the christian God that didn't send it at all. If one of these christian Gods is true, then the other christian Gods are false. Pro says "This is a clear system of objective morality, as certain actions are deemed objectively wrong/right within. Because of this, if there is God, then it logically follows that objective morality would exist, because objective morality is an inherent characteristic of the God that's in the Christian bible. "Some person saying that is is objectively right or wrong doesn't mean it is. Your going to need more than your own assertion of biblical morality to back that up. Pro says "if there is God,then it logically follows that objective morality would exist, because objective morality is an inherent characteristic of the God that's in the Christian bible. ""How is objective morality an inherent characteristic of the God in the Christian bible ? Even if one of the Christian Gods is true, how does this prove that God is a necessary pre condition and not just a possible prior condition ? A simple question remains, has Pro proved that God is a necessary pre condition for the existence of objective morality ? no. I could concede at this point that God exists and that the existence of God means objective morality exists, but this doesn't prove that God is necessary for objective morality to exist. In order to prove that, Pro would need to show that not only is God a prior condition for objective morality, but that God is the ONLY possible prior condition that would result in the existence of objective morality. Absent this proof, the resolution is not affirmed. I look forward to Pros reply.