The moral argument is sound

The Presumption Of God As The Only Explanation1) My opponent claims that when we speak of morality, we speak of a mental process. However, a mental process is only needed to recognize morality, or use it to make certain choices. This deals with moral epistemology, not moral ontology. Thus, even if metal processes are how we come to know morality and utilize it, that in no way means that objective moral truths (assuming they exist) are grounded in a mental process. 2) Pro goes back to mentioning how different cultures disagree on particular moral issues. So, who is actually correct between them? Well, if morality is purely subjective, then nobody is right. If moral objectivism is correct, even without God, then the answer is simply unknown. No society gets to "decide" what is true as Pro implies. If Moral Realism is true, then moral truths obtain regardless of any human debating, and what we can figure out. The question then remains to as what grounds these moral facts if they are real? There is no reason why the nature of existence itself cannot ground these facts; why must the nature of some conscious being ground these facts? A conscious being would only need to be present to acknowledge the truth and act, or not act on it; not to be the foundation of it. Also, as I stated in my last round, moral truths could be non-contingent brute facts. Brute facts by definition need no grounding, or explanation.Pro tries to dodge his burden of having to show all Atheistic theories of morality are false, by arguing that if something is truly good, then it has to be grounded in the specific being that he described. If you read my thoughts on 1) and 2) above, you will see that his arguments for this imaginary necessity fall flat on their face. Pro still needs to knock down all Atheistic accounts of morality, including the accounts that human beings have not conjured up as of yet:"The onus is on [The Theist] to show that all such atheist-friendly accounts are wrong, even the ones we haven't thought of yet." - Philosopher. Stephen Law[1]Shifting The Burden Of ProofPGA simply asserts that God must ground moral truths, and that this assertion holds unless I can come up with a different explanation. This is nothing more than shifting the burden of proof. Even if I did not provide an explanation, that does not automatically make his position correct, or even most likely correct. This is self-evidently fallacious.Thibodeau's ArgumentI only quoted Thibodeu with regards to his claim that this "problem" for Atheism pertaining to morality in no way obvious. I did not imply once that I endorsed any specific theory of morality that he endorses. This is just a red herring from Pro. Either way, he claims that God is perfect goodness. However, no reason is given as to why this is necessary to ground morality. If there is objective morality, then there is objective immorality. One could easily posit and evil being to ground objective immorality. Pro says that goodness is the difference which allows God the ability to ground these moral truths, but does not actually state what the supposed relevance is supposed to be. Additionally, even if morality changes that does not make it subjective. If a mountain is at one height at one stage of its existence, but another height at another, it is still objectively true that at both of those times, the mountain was at that particular height. It is not clear at all why changelessness is required for the grounding of morality.Brute FactsIn this section, Pro continues to assert his position without actually arguing for it. He claims that in order for there to be moral value, there would have to be something that the morality is fixed upon. What reason are we given to believe this is true? None, and that is the problem. His response here also begs the question. If the main bulk of the argument in support of the first round is going to work, then he has to list all of his logical steps. We can boil down the argument he would have to prove true in order to sufficiently support the first premise:P1: If objective moral values exist, they must be fixated upon somethingP2: If objective moral values must be fixated upon something, they cannot be fixated upon anything else but GodC: If objective moral values exist, they must be fixated upon GodNot only has Pro failed at proving P2 (he hasn't ruled out all Atheistic accounts of morality), but he hasn't ruled out the idea that moral truths, if objective, are non-contingent brute facts. Here is the simplest definition of a brute fact:"A fact is brute when an explanation for it does not exist"[2]Brute facts aren't explained by, grounded, or fixated upon anything. Erik Wielenberg's idea has not even really been touched upon by the opposing side in this debate. If objective morality is a brute fact, then P1 in the above syllogism is false. It is only possible for God to be the only explanation for morals, if there even can be an explanation for morals! Pro has to show that moral truths cannot just be brute facts. There is nothing logically or metaphysically impossible with this idea, and we have received no reason to think it is implausible, so it seems like a rather uphill battle for Pro. His entire argument rests upon hidden unsupported premises. Does Moral Relativism Contradict The Laws Of Logic?My opponent claiming that Moral Relativism breaks laws of logic is a mistake. If Society A claims that abortion is wrong, and this is a subjective claim, then it is true that abortion is wrong to Society A. If Society B claims that abortion is not wrong, and this is a subjective claim, then it is true that abortion is wrong to Society B. These two statements alone, without a qualification, would be contradictory:i) Abortion is wrongii) Abortion is not wrongHowever, in logic, if you qualify a difference, then contradictions can be easily avoided. These two statements below are not contradictory:i) Abortion is wrong to society Aii) Abortion is not wrong to society BThe claim that Moral Relativism violates the laws of logic is just a misunderstanding of logic (and on top of that, Moral Relativism). To give another example, these two statements contradict each other:i) The cat is whiteii) The can is not white...But once you qualify the statement there is no contradiction:i) The cat is white at certain parts (parts A)ii) The cat is not white (black) at certain parts (parts B)Obviously a black and white cat is not contradictory. Once you add a qualification in the equation; contradictions can be avoided.Must Laws Originate From Thoughts?Laws can either be prescriptive or descriptive. Take chess for example, the rules (laws) of the same were created from a mind, or minds, and are prescriptive in essence. However, the laws of physics for example, are descriptive. Yes, the laws come from human minds, but what the laws are describing are not dependant on those laws. If the law of gravity (our description of gravity) did not exist, gravity still would. What about moral laws? Well, humans may just be describing truths which could be non-contingent brute facts. They could also be grounded in the nature of existence itself. Perhaps a Contractarian view is correct. Pro simply has not shown that all Atheistic accounts are destined to fail. He simply presumes this erroneous conclusion, then tries to hold his weight without solid foundation.Meaning And EquivocationMy opponent commits the fallacy of equivocation with regards to the word "meaning". Yes, my words do have objective meaning. Obviously, I meant "meaning" in a totally different different sense (as in, the "meaning" of the locket my grandmother gave me). Here are the two different definitions: 1. What is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word. 2. The end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of thisintrusion?[3] Now, here is why my opponent's claims here work against him. If humans can make up objective laws for something like meaning behind words, then it becomes inexplicable why human beings could not conjure up objective laws for morality as well. Expanding On "The Grandmother's Locket" AnalogyMy opponent says that I still have to make claims about objective truth to state what I said. I agree. It has to be objectively true that my grandmother did give me a locket, and that I find value in it. However, if moral relativism is true, then these two statements would be true:i) The locket has meaning to me (person A)ii) The locket does not have meaning to most people (group B)There is no contradiction. However, if Moral Relativism is true, then only "no" can answer the following question:"Does that locket have objective, universal meaning?"While it is true that objectively true claims have to be made, that in no way harms the concept of Moral Relativism.The Euthyphro DilemmaPro basically just completely ignored my arguments here. Thus, the Euthyphro Dilemma stands. He presents a red herring quote from Ronald Nash:"What God wills can never conflict with what God is" ....I never made any claims to the contrary. What God "is" refers to God's nature. I already pre-rebutted this response in my previous round using the second quote from Keith Augustine. Since I already responded to this potential objection in my last round; Pro's quote is trivial. Conclusion Pro has the burden of proof to establish that The Moral Argument is sound, and demonstrate that God does indeed exist. Not only did Pro fail to establish the first premise, but the second premise was not close to sufficiently supported. Most of my arguments were hand-waved away also.Sources[1] http://stephenlaw.blogspot.ca...[2] http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...