Resolved : A Christian God is necessary in order for objective morality to exist.

My argument is that, without God, morality does not exist at all. Morality is just a concept constructed by society, but is just a subjective system that is only illusory. Con states, "People often misinterpret this debate as whether or not an atheist can act morally which is wrong, because obviously someone who lacks belief in God can act morally."This is utterly and completely false. An atheist cannot act morally. If there is no God, morality is only subjective. Amorality is all that there is. There is no good or bad. It is all just opinion. Saying an atheist can act morally is like sayng a 2 dimensional person can move in 3 dimensions. No, in an atheistic world, there are no real morals, and in a 2 dimensional world, there is not a 3rd dimension.If the world began without intention, then according to the law of causality, only non-intentional affects can occur. This means that there is no purpose at all. Morality requires intention and purpose; without them, it cannot exist. My opponent did not rebut either of my two arguments, so they still stand. However, I will refute all of his baseless assertions.Baseless Assertion 1- Objective Morality and Different CulturesIt is not objectively wrong to kill someone (in an atheistic paradigm) in America. It is legally wrong, which is a difference. So, different cultures will have different guidelines and regulations, and some may follow objective morals, and some may not. But society does not define objective morals. It can only obey them. My opponent is correct in saying that objective morals are true regardless of peoples' opinions of them, but he does not give any supporting evidence to how objective morals can exist in his atheistic system. However, he attempts to do so in his next argument:Baseless Assertion 2- The Veil of InoranceMy opponent attempts to argue that a normal rational person would know what the objective morals are. But my opponent fails to explain what a normal rational person is. This is completely debateable, as everyone disagrees over moral issues, so this argument fails in that this thought experiment is not realistically feasible. This "normal rational person" is a fiction. Unless my opponent can show this normal rational person existing in reality, this argument is refuted.Baseless Assertion 3- Help Vs Harm"Premise 1- Any action that intentionally harms someone is morally wrong."This premise is a baseless assertion. He has not proven why this is true, he just assumes it is true. Humans intentionally harm animals to eat them. In acts of war, soldiers have tortured for valuable information. This is an impossible premise to prove. This argument is refuted.Baseless Assertion 4- Utilitarianism"Premise 1- Any action that benefits society as a whole is morally permissable."Hitler argued that by exterminating the Jews, the economy would increase, which would benefit the society as a whole. One could argue that the Jews would not be benefitting, but once they are massacred, they would not exist, so the entire society would benefit.And there are many other examples of how this premise is entirely debateable. My opponent has not substantiated any of his claims. He just assumes they are true and starts from there. He may have valid arguments, but they are unsound. I disagree with all of his premises.ConclusionIf mankind is the most rational being in the world, then mankind is the measure of all morality. If we created morality, then it is entirely subjective. It is no different than peoples' taste in flavors of ice cream. My opponent needs to show how objective morals can exist without a God. Instead, he has tried to show that objective moral systems are helpful to society (which I agee with), but all of these arguments are easily refuted from an atheistic paradigm, as I have done.