Any Religious topic (preferably from a theist)

We will be debating the Moral argument for the existence of God. The argument goes like this P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. P3. Therefore, God exists. Now one might consider this argument to be a non-sequitur but I will show why it is not. Now the premises I have laid here are the traditional premises usually brought up by apologists as Dr. William Lane Craig but for the purposes of simplicity, I would like to change up the premise wording using the format presented by Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy in his video on the topic we are discussing of course with a little word changing. I'll put the link to that video here: Okay so. P1. Morality is a rational enterprise P2. Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist P3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume that moral realism is grounded in a human source of rationality. P4. Premises 1, 2, and 3 confirm that Moral realism is grounded in a source of necessity (Refer to this video on the Contingency argument for further explanation: ). P5. The source of necessity is what we call God (refer to video in Premise four) Con. Therefore, God exists. Is P1 sound? Yes, it is because Morality is deciphered through reason and logic. Just like mathematics and philosophical positions. We know that Morality cannot be based on naturalistic principles because you won't get moral and ethical truths through empirical testings. If someone is about to hurt someone else we cannot know how we ought to act. We can only reason that we do not act in a certain way. Confirming our first Premise. If the debate reaches that point I will address those who object to this aka those who support to non-cognitivism. Is the second premise sound? Yes, it is and hears why. Now before I defend Moral realism I would like to define Moral realism. Moral realism defined is summed up like this Moral realism is true even if no one believes it just like the laws of logic or the laws of physics. Moral realism is independent of Human Cognition but we can tap into moral realism using our cognition. Doing this will help us better operate in reality. Okay so Moral Realism defended: I am going to put a video for you to watch because I will not have enough typing space to type down all the arguments form Moral realism and so: So what about P3. Is it sound? Yes, it is we cannot be the source of moral knowledge because we are not perfect beings and Hitler is a great example. We also do not know fully about moral facts. We fail to perform moral duties. We are also contingent beings (refer to Contingency argument for further explanation). For example, we discovered the laws of logic and mathematics but we did not make them. 2+2=4 even if no human exists. P3 follows logically from P1 and 2. Becuase we are contingent and fail to follow moral laws. Logical deduction shows us that P1 and 2 confirm that morality must be grounded in a necessary and rational source. The source must also be sentient. P4 is therefore confirmed. So the basis for morality must be A conscious rational necessary entity who would serve as the foundation for morality and whom we would like to for moral guidance. Logical deduction leads us to P5. If Moral Realism is true then the source for Morality is God simply using logical deduction we can confirm this. So what about the Conclusion is it sound? Yes the Ontology of Moral Realism (Ontology being the metaphysical study of the nature of being) grounds morality in a conscious rational necessary entity to whom the title of God is given (see the ontological argument for more info: ) Let me give you an example when Chemist discovered that water was H2O they didn't merely stipulate that one was the other but rather they discovered that the terms mean the same thing. You see Good=God and God=Good. Moralism realism must be ground in unchanging beings and this is important as it shows that the moral argument can only be used to defend the existence of a Monotheistic God who is omniscience, omnipotent and omnipresent. My final statement is based on whether morality comes from evolution. This most likely didn't happen and even if it did it does not disprove moral realism. The moral argument is about the foundation for moral values and duties not how we came to k ow those truths. Moral epistemology deals with how we came to know moral values. As Dr. Frank Turek argues Moral laws are not chemical or biological: they are immaterial and come from personal agents. Chemistry and Biology are descriptive, not prescriptive; evolution describes what does survive, not what ought to survive. He preceded to give an example of rape and murder and how evolution would see moral changes in the name of human survival. If P2 of the Moral argument is sound than evolution can't account for morality.