The moral argument is sound

In my opponents opening remarks, 'The Presumption of God as the only explanation' he states: "Even if we assume an objective standard independent of subjective moral wants, there is no reason given why it must be grounded in a necessarily existing conscious being engaged in a mental process" 1) When we speak of morality we speak of a mental process of discerning right and wrong, thus of the mind, of conscious being. How can morality be grounded in something other than conscious being - mind? 2) As a subjective human being, limited in knowledge, what does my opponent ground his morality upon? Yes, in people 'doing moral philosophy without appealing to God' we see disagreement between individuals, cultures and societies on what is right and wrong. Which individual, culture, or society decides? Relative, subjective morals have been the basis for man’s contention and inhumanity towards his fellow man. Who decides? Which subjective being is necessary or even capable of grounding objective morals in their own being without an external objective standard? Why is what my opponent is saying true or is it? Why should he, in his limited understanding, get to determine moral values and pass them off as truth for the rest of us? Why should his little group of nontheists determine what I ought to believe? So I ask my opponent to state what standard his moral foundation of right and wrong rests upon. If there is good, as my opponent believes, then what does he see the ideal ‘good’, the best, as resting upon; himself or something external to himself? What is his standard or measure for abortion? Is it a woman’s ‘right’ to choose? Is it murder of another human being if the woman's life is not in jeopardy or even if it is? Con wants me to knock down all atheist accounts of morality in order to prove that only God can account for what is truly good and truly right or wrong. All I have to do is show that an explanation of what is truly good cannot be argued for by a limited, subjective human being in and of himself without appealing to an ultimate, universal, omniscient, unchanging and benevolent mind or standard. That standard, by logical necessity, I claim, would be God, unless Con can show otherwise. Unless Con can show me that his moral beliefs are grounded in an objective source then what his beliefs amount to is his feelings, what he prefers. Unless Con can show me that his standard for believing is the ultimate good then he, and everyone who believes the same, has nothing other than their personal preference and relative subjective opinion to base goodness on. On those grounds right and wrong become meaningless, whatever a person wishes it to be. Con quotes: "There is no obvious contradiction between a strong commitment to moral realism and disbelief in God. That atheism and moral realism are in tension is a philosophical position that must be argued for." - Jason Thibodeau I spent over an hour reading the Thibodeau argument and may take time to expand on his presuppostions later in the debate. I'll just tackle one now. I did not see him once account for objective morality outside of God: "If asked to enumerate the differences between Barack Obama and God, it would be easy to come up with a fairly long list. And it is just as easy to see that many of the properties on this list can have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Obama is not immortal, whereas God is. But being immortal does not give one the capacity to ground moral truths, since if there were an immortal human being, he would have no more claim to be the ultimate arbiter of morality than Barack Obama has now. So again, the question is: What special feature does God have that endows him with the ability to ground moral value, and in virtue of what does this feature grant him this ability?" I find this type of argument flawed. For one, it is comparing a subjective, relative, limited, created, changing, immoral being to an infinite, objective, omniscient, eternal, self-existent, unchanging moral Being. One character that was left off this list by Thibodeau is God's nature, His goodness. My opponent quotes Erik Wielenberg on 'brute facts': "A brute fact, by definition, requires no explanation or grounding. Brute facts obtain without doing so in virtue of any other facts obtaining." I have stated that God is a necessary being for there to be such a thing as morality. How do you get 'good' from differing subjective opinion? I have given reason to believe objective moral values are grounded in God. In order for there to be a moral value there would have to be something that the moral is fixed upon, something that is best. Con needs to show that the something exists outside of God or else he has no ground to refute my claim that God is a necessary being. Concerning the laws of logic my opponent states: "If Moral Relativism is true however, then each society would have collectively subjective moral values, that don't involve any ontological contradiction in the slightest. Society A could have a collectively subjective moral code that is different than society B, but as long as there is no objective contradiction, then no laws of logic are violated by Moral Relativism." That is precisely my point; they have collective subjective values/codes that contradict each other. They state the opposite of the other. 'A' does not equal 'A' violating the Law of Identity (i.e., concerning my example - abortion). One society is claiming the contrary truth of another society. Which is true? It would be like me saying that a dog is a cat. 'A' does not equal 'A'. A dog is not a cat. 'Good' or 'right' for one society is the opposite in another society. Which is right? 'A' has no fixed address. 'A' means two totally opposite things. It loses the meaning of right or good, making it absurd, nothing but preference. Preference does not necessarily equate to goodness. Also with any code or law, it originated from a thought, either God's or some subjective person's mind. Why is that which originates from Con’s mind objective? For it to be objective Con would need to show that it originated from an objective source. What is that source? I said: "These principles echo the Ten Commandments, the standard for normative ethics. It shows the moral ‘oughtness’ of man. Try to imagine a culture or society that adopted lying as the norm." Con replies: "Pro asks us to imagine a culture or society that adopted lying as the norm. However, all we have to do is look at the society we have. Lying is the norm in the government. Lying is the norm when evidence mounts up that someone did something bad..." How does Con know that lying is bad or that lying is the norm unless he has an objective standard of measure for such an act? That is my point. In any culture or society we know that lying is bad, that it is not good. Con wishes to argue that lying is the norm but he still sees lying as bad. Con states: "The argument was made from the other side that meaning speaks of objective values. However, the exact opposite is true. Meaning is subjective by essence..." Is the exact opposite true? Does my opponent want me to understand his exact meaning with this statement or will any meaning do? Is there any objective meaning to what he has said or am I free to interpret it any way I choose? Do words in context carry specific meaning or is it impossible for my opponent to make himself understood? When I say that lying is deceitful have I in fact made a meaningful moral statement? Con states: "The locket my grandmother gave me has significance to me, but it does not have significance to someone else for example. So, the argument that meaning speaks of objective values is shaky at best. We make our own meaning, and our own purpose… The point is that we are left without any solid reason to believe that morality is universally objective; Pro has failed in his task. " This statement is either true or it is not. Although it speaks of a relative sense in that it applies to Con it is not relativism. Con confuses something relative with relativism. It grounds the experience to something and someone that is real/true, thus objective - the locket and Cons grandmother. It is relative to Con if what Con says is in fact true. It can't both be a locket that his grandmother gave him and not be. The meaning is clearly either/or. It is not both. The Euthyphro Dilemma My opponent states: "If the theist claims that rape is prohibited because God does not allow it, then if God condoned raping innocent children it would be good. However, this would stomp on the same intuitions the Theist tries to claim supports objective morality in the first place. The theist could say that this is a false dilemma, as goodness itself would be grounded in God's nature." Ronald Nash states: "What God wills can never conflict with what God is. There is nothing higher than God, but neither is what God wills arbitrary. What God wills reflects and is consistent with His own eternal nature, which is immutably and necessarily good." [1] Con is the one who tries to tag God with evil. The biblical God has given man a will that was marred in the Garden with his choice of knowing both good and evil. Man becomes a relativist when he chooses his own right from wrong - evil. Nevertheless, justice is served in God's time. [1] Ronald Nash, 'Life's Ultimate Questions', p.87.