The moral argument for God is sound.

Cross-Examination of Round 2 Con's God-of-the-gaps argument is moot. 1) Con's argument could just as easily be called evolution-of-the-gaps since how the materialist gets from lifeless matter to conscious, mindful, moral beings via materialism is pure speculation. Con's argument is the argument from contradiction, not mine.What does he have that bolsters his view that subjective morality is correct? Social conventions and cultures on earth contradict each other in the values people hold because of subjectivism. The logical laws of Identity and NonContradiction, plus the need for a final measure, address these issues. My argument has shown the soundness of an objective, unchanging, moral source by contrasting it with the senselessness of subjective morality and its contradiction in terms. Subject morality is made up based on preferences - likes and dislikes. Right and wrong are what morality should be built upon, not subjective preferences. Con's Godless standard is a changing chameleon. 2) Not a God-of-the-gaps Argument, per ConI laid out simple commands from the Bible that deals with our relationship to each other:Do not murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, covet (Exodus 20). Jesus summed up these in one command - Love your neighbor. These laws are fundamental to all civilized cultures and rationally compassionate people. Con said: "The moral argument uses the principle that based on a contradiction one can prove almost anything." Of course! Objective morality abides in logic! It has what is NECESSARY for morality to be true. Two conflicting statements CANNOT both be true at the same time and in same manner. *** Con: Suppose that the statement S is both true and false. So we can use the following assumptions:A1) SA2) not S The statement 'S' cannot be both true and false. It contradicts logic, the foundation of all language and meaning. Con: Let us now 'prove' the earth is flat.Con: P1) If the earth is not flat, then not S. (from A2)P2) SC) The earth is flat.Con: C follows from P1 and P2 if S and not S are mutually exclusive, which they must be. The argument is thus valid, but one of the assumptions is false. First,Let me sum up the original argument:P1. No God, no objective moralityP2. Objective moralityC. God Now Con's new argument:P1. No flat earth, no S. P2. SC. Flat earth. (What is 'S' in Con's premise? It is not defined.) Second, there are two components to a categorical syllogism, validity, and soundness. Vern Poythress, Logic: A God-Centered Approach, explains: " A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion follows from the premises. But in using the word valid we do not indicate whether the premises are actually true. A sound argument is an argument that is valid and whose premises are all true." p. 49 https://frame-poythress.org... I have laid out why premises 1 and 2 are true, so Con's argument is once again moot. Based on that evidence I have confirmed the conclusion is sound. Con: In the moral argument S is 'Objective morality exists.' and the conclusion has been replaced by 'God exists.' Categorical syllogisms are briefly stated cases. 'S' has not been "replaced." It is stated. If not-X, then not-S. S, therefore X.What is necessary for 'S' to be is shown in the Premise 2 argument - a transcendent, objective/absolute/omniscient, universal, unchanging, immaterial Being. Not only does objective morality transcend our being, the laws of logic required for this discussion also transcend our being. They are universal/absolute, unchanging, and immaterial. If Con feels the syllogism is invalid, then let him give his reasons why since his analogy bombed: P1. No God, no objective moralityP2. Objective moralityC. God If he thinks it is unsound, then let's see how he undermine my arguments that expand on this syllogism. Con: "Rather than assuming A1 and A2, theists try to prove them." That is the point; to demonstrate the premises are sound. We justify and make sense of morality by offering the solution, the objective basis needed for morality. Con: "A1, that objective morality does not exist, is 'proven' by appeal to ignorance" Sure, I appeal to Con's ignorance. He doesn't know, hence the debate. Con: "No one really understands how objective morality can exist, hence, unless we invoke magic, it doesn't." Not true. Con does not understand so he equivocates that no one understands. If anything, evolutionary processes are magic. Life just magically appears, as does consciousness, reason, morality, logic, mathematical laws, and other attributes of being. Objective morality exists by the impossibility of the contrary. It is impossible to have "rights" and moral obligations without a best we derive rights from, so Con has to 1) either establish why his views are objectively moral or 2) that subjective morality is possible. (His failure to address these points will boost my argument for God as the sound explanation) 1) What is the objective source that makes one right over the other? If he found that he would have an objective moral basis to make sense of morality. 2) If he goes with subjective morality Con needs to make sense of how two opposing subjective value systems can both be right, or which one is correct. Logically, they can't. Con then questions how theists invoke God as the conclusion. Simple: God gives credence to morality. Con does not like this reasoning; I ask him to make sense of morality otherwise. He is also under the FALSE assumption that there is no proof of God's existence. This assumption comes from his starting point, his basic presuppositions upon which his focus rests. The theist is NOT appealing to magic at all, but to an ultimate, objective being as necessary. Con then goes into discussing/determining what objective morality is by stating the necessity of language. I agree communication is needed, and I don't refuse to accept this as Con claims. Logic is also required. As for what Con wants me to glean from this web link, there is no summary to know, except it refers to page 11. Please clarify this! Con: "...whether claims are true or false depends on what people decide." No, they depend on whether what someone believes lines up with what is TRUE. It either is true, or it is not. Choices do not alter the truth. Con goes into a detailed discussion on circles. I agree that definitions provide the clarity in meaning. So what? The idea of "circle" forms when a person understands that there is an IDEAL and what it is. The explanation depends on how close to the ideal the teacher gets as to its clarity. The point: A conception requires that it meets an objective source or form to be true. What is Con's source for morality? It is subjective minds. Which ones? We don't know. Con's ideas are no better than the teacher's wonky representation of a circle. He can't give clarity to why his belief is right because his standard is relative - subject to change. Con: "Things can hardly be more objective than mathematical concepts and yet a mathematical claim depends for its truth on opinion and is therefore subjective." While I agree the underlined is true, the rest of Con's statement is blatantly false. Mathematical claims depend on what is, such as 2+2=4, not on Con's opinion. They are universally true. I ask the reader, does 2+2=4 DEPEND on opinion or is it a necessary truth? I'm not following Con's argument regarding raping children for fun. The ambiguity needs to be clarified. What does he mean? 1. Raping children for fun is wrong. 2. Raping children for fun is right.Which is it? Does Con believe it is wrong only for some? Later on, he says:"So, the claim 'Raping children for fun is wrong' means 'Raping children for fun is wrong according to <some standard>'. It is that standard that defines the term 'wrong'." It SHOULD be wrong by any moral standard. Does Con agree? *** Con's definition of morality: "...morality is a standard that applies to behaviour and agents," is sunk by Tim Barnett's four points: 1. Evolutionary Naturalism Cannot Get an “Ought” from an “Is”That is, "Knowledge is what “is” and values are what “ought” to be....The problem stems from trying to deduce a moral duty from a scientific description. Darwinian evolution may be able to describe past behavior, but it lacks the resources to prescribe future behavior."2. Evolutionary Morality Keeps EvolvingEvolution is arbitrary and could have evolved differently; therefore, the same is true of evolutionary morality...Since evolution is a process of change, morality must also change.3. Evolutionary Naturalism Explains Morality AwayEvolution is all about survival of species. This means, on an evolutionary view, moral beliefs are fitness directed, not truth-directed.4. Evolutionary Naturalism Undermines All Moral BeliefsOn an evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust our moral convictions. After all, if we hold our moral beliefs because of the fitness conferred by the resulting behavior, then it appears that we would have had those beliefs whether or not they were true. Minimally, this means we could never know whether our moral beliefs correspond to moral facts. https://www.str.org...***Con refers to Post 477 and 802 claiming I rely on God's moral standard in asking him, “Your mind is your highest authority on goodness, right? Why is what you believe actually good since your mind determines it?”My intent was to find out how Con can make sense of morality if his or some other relative changing mind is his highest appeal. It begs the question of why he gets to determine good based on his preferences.Instead, Con turns the tables to make it all about God's morality (GM) and my belief system, thus avoiding the questions (as usual). Please notice my questions, his responses, then my replies to his questions for I did not avoid his questions. Because of space, I hope to address his other arguments in Round 5.