Objective Moral Values and Duties Show that God Exists

"I did not detect in my opponent"s response any objection to premise one." My entire argument is talking about how objective moral values and duties do not exist. This is in direct conflict with premise 1. Pro then goes on to talk about the problem with objective morality in an atheistic universe. Did pro read my arguments? I don't support objective morality at all, it does not exist. So pro claiming that this point went unopposed as well is laughable, at best. Let's dissect Pro's interpretation of my argument of moral nihilism, and how utterly incorrect it is. "it turns out that morally reprehensible acts are not really morally reprehensible." Not sure exactly what Pro's point is with this. It's true that morals are only in existence to carry on the well being of our societies and species, which is why many people believe incest is wrong, including me, but that doesn't mean violating the society's agreed upon moral terms in the forms of law or social structure shouldn't be punished. They were there for a reason, protection of the human race and/or the society which they hold up. Now let's get to the obvious elephant in the room, the appeal to emotion fallacy pro uses. Pro brings up rape and child abuse and claims "On this view, molesting a child is morally equivalent to wearing white after labor day." Let's address these statements individually: 1. Rape and child abuse are not really wrong I stated nothing is INHERENTLY wrong or right. WE as a species or society deem them as wrong because it goes against us as a species or society. This goes for rape and child abuse. I challenge Pro to provide a completely objective standard and reasoning as to why they are INHERENTLY wrong? What is Pro's god's amazing and objective moral standard that is objectively superior to any other. 2. Molesting a child = wearing white after labor day More appeal to emotion. Pro hasn't addressed my argument. Again, neither are INHERENTLY wrong or right. We as a society or species deem them to be wrong or right depending on what our group or society needs to function. Stop with this obvious misrepresentation of my argument Pro, I never even glimpsed in my previous arguments that I believe this. More appeal to emotion, what did I honestly expect from a religious person on a religious topic. This has happened every time. Pro goes on and on about various people that went against social norms to attempt to disprove my argument when that is not even what I'm arguing. I'm convinced Pro saw the part about morals being about helping society and decided to google people who opposed social norms. I've stated my actual argument multiple times now. Regardless, let's peer into each: 1. Valkyrie conspirators sacrificed their lives to attempt to end Hitler's reign. Then pro states " If my opponent is correct, then it is the conspirators who acted in a morally reprehensible way and Adolf Hitler who was the paragon of morality" This shows they have absolutely no dang clue as to what I am arguing. I am literally arguing that neither are inherently at fault or in the right. No, my view does not turn Hitler into the moral hero because of social norms. When did I even state that social norms should be accepted above all? Where did pro get any of this he is talking about? "Moral progress is also impossible on my opponent's view." Really? Because my view literally changes nothing about human morality. Just states that it isn't inherently correct or incorrect. This idea has been around for centuries and is pretty popular, at least on face value, to a lot of philosophers. "Are we really going to say that acts like child abuse and rape are not really wrong?" etc. etc. etc. More fallacy of appealing to emotion while not even responding to my arguments, I'm just going to move on at this point. Pro goes on to quote me saying that morality is influenced completely or almost completely by personal feeling or opinions and then concludes that this doesn't address objective morality. Again, did pro read my argument? My argument was that these personal feelings or opinions changing people's moral standards show how societies formed separately with their own laws and social norms; and these laws and social norms are a product of subjective morality, because morality was created by humans to serve humans. Please revisit my first round for clarification. pro then states that the common sense of people's right and wrong shows there is a difference between them??? I didn't understand that part but afterwards he challenged me to give you all reason(s) to doubt objective moral values. Revisit my first argument, that is the entire thing. I never suggested that there was a basis for objective moral values other than god because my whole argument is predicated on the fact that there IS NO BASIS. That is my entire point. Why do I feel like a broken record? Has pro actually read my arguments? "If morality is merely a social construct, then (as both my opponent and I have shown) different societies will come up with different moral systems." Thank you for proving my point. That is my argument; but I explain how this shows there is no objective morality because it leads us to believe morality was created by humans to serve humans. Pro then states how objective morals and duties do show god exists. He still hasn't adhered to my challenge to present these objective standards and where they come from. "If my opponent abandons his position of moral nihilism and instead denies premise one, "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist", then he must give us some alternate objective grounds for moral values and duties. This objective grounds must be the same in every possible world (unchanging and independent from any external cause) and it must be capable of obligating us to conform our behavior to it (it must be capable of issuing moral duties to us)." No, my role as Con is to disprove that objective morality proves god. I have just chosen to do this by proven there are no objective morals. Pro is grossly negligent and ignorant to a vast amount of philosophical knowledge, as shown here by this poor argumentation. He has not even begun to address my actual argument and would rather appeal to emotion by saying my thinking support rape, child abuse, and Hitler. What a stimulating debate *sarcasm*