The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

There's nothing more vulnerable than a being who is all Love...Recall the argument, 1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values & duties do not exist.2. Objective moral values & duties do exist.3. Therefore, God exists.Con has only tried to negate P1 with a misunderstood parody, an out-of-context & irrelevant dilemma, and a less plausible & more ad hoc moral ontology. We've even been witness to Con attempting to divert to the red-herring of doctrinal questions. By contrast I've offered arguments for P1 including a theistic moral ontology, atheistic dedication to P1, and even a rationalist argument for God as a maximally great being, as it would be better to be the moral standard then just exemplify it. Taken together, it seems that P1 & P2 remains more plausible than any negation offered. It therefore follows that on pain of irrationality, one ought to affirm the soundness of the moral argument. A. Non sequiturCon has not adequately responded to the fact that his parody only includes a contingent being, not a non-contingent being, hence it is a failed parody or straw man. All he does to defend this is ask what the difference between contingency and non-contingency is. A contingent thing could have been true or false, whereas a non-contingent thing must be true or false. The former bespeaks probability, and the latter bespeaks possibility. I argue for the latter, but all Con does to show the latter as a non-sequitur is say,"If I can make any parody argument sound that is contradictory, then the original argument is unsound."^This is true, but only if the argument is in fact logically parodied. However, it wasn't since Con assumed a contingent being.BI've clearly stated I'm arguing for God as a necessary being, I haven't affirmed any pagan gods, etc so Con is misrepresenting the argument under B. He merely asks why God has to be necessary. But that's like asking why God has to be God? Or like asking me to give a definition of God and show two examples? All I can do is offer God as ontologically maximally great. I can gradually discover God's attributes of all love and goodness while they still remain wholly true apart from any subjective opinion of them... the same goes true for the objectivity of morals. Why does God necessarily have to be non-contingent? Because a maximally great being is by definition maximally great in all possible worlds, i.e., either possible or impossible, i.e., non-contingent or necessary. Now Con continues to ask questions regarding the doctrine of inerrancy. Surely these are good questions; is the bible the inspired word of God or just human inventions? Is the bible infallible on what it teaches, even though our fallible minds interpret it? All good questions, but irrelevant to this debate, http://www.debate.org...Con concludes that I must show God as necessary for morals. I think I've done this the only way how one can using metaphysics, by offering a rationalist argument for an ontologically maximally great being who necessarily is the moral standard rather than just exemplifying it. This argument has largely gone unanswered however. All we've seen is misunderstandings. Also, I've shown how God as the moral ontology is more plausible and less ad hoc. From which it follows that P1 is more plausibly true. P2 has gone unchallenged but I've supported it regardless. So on pain of irrationality the reader must affirm the soundness of the moral argument within the purview of this debate. ConclusionTo the reader, I want to bring it all into a proper context by saying that God is not just the conclusion of some syllogism. I've experienced him as the living God of the universe! That's how I know God to be true, but arguments and evidence is how I can show God to be true. So if you remain unconvinced by this debate, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist, rather it just means I'm a bad apologist or debater. Before I was a Christian it wasn't any intellectual barrier I had that kept me from a relationship with God, rather it was fear of being hurt or exposed. But then I realized, that though my fear of hurt is keeping from experiencing God, He knows full well how much I'm going to hurt him right from the start; and yet he even died to make it possible. There's nothing more vulnerable than a being who is all Love, and there's nothing more valuable, purposeful and meaningful than experiencing God, forever.