If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

BOP:Here I don’t think my opponent understood my point at all. He cannot merely assert that absent any evidence for the impossibility of OMV without God, we should assume that it is possible. This is flawed logic. Harry Gensler furthers:“When we criticize an opponent’s argument, we try to show that it’s unsound…If the argument has a false premise or is invalid, then our opponent has not proved the conclusion. But the conclusion still might be true…To show a view to be false, we must do more than just refute an argument for it; we must invent an argument of our own that shows the view to be false.” [1]Thus, my opponent must erect a case of his own to show that OMV can exist without God. I did not assume the resolution true; I offered arguments to show that there is no plausible atheistic grounds for believing OMV can exist without God. Remember, the conditional I have to prove is: “If God does not exist, then OMV do not exist.” I do not have to prove “If God exists, then OMV exist.” Both can be true, both can be false. Nor do I have to prove the antecedent of the conditional, namely, the existence of God.Evolution:My opponent completely dropped this point. Please extend it. Without God, there is no reason to think moral values are objective since they may have been otherwise. Reciprocal altruism may be advantages for survival but that says nothing about whether these values are objectively good or wrong.Speciesism:My opponent drops this point completely. There is no ontological foundation on which to base the claim that “OMV exist” in light of the presence of a more advanced species. To assert that “murder is wrong” would be guilty of speciesism, and therefore on par with the irrationality of racism. This is not only an epistemic problem, but an ontological one since the mere fact that we think X is wrong intuitively does not mean X is actually wrong. My opponent just asserts that human morality might not be objective. This is not an argument! If OMV exist, the statement “murder is wrong” is true independent of any claims by us or other species. But absent God, there is no legitimate way to say “murder is wrong” in terms of ubiquitous application. In order for him to win this point, he must provide some ontological foundation for thinking that moral values are not speciest. Absurdity of Condemnation:“Because it hasn't been proven that God is the only way that OMV can exist. Therefore its possible that OMV exists, even absent God, thus the atheist can condemn something as being truly wrong.”My opponent uses flawed logic here. See the evidence in the BOP section. Just because it has not been proven that God is the only way that OMV can exist, it does not follow that therefore OMV DO exist or CAN exist. Either way, extend this point. The argument was that we cannot legitimately condemn something as objectively wrong, on atheism, unless there is some ontological basis for this. I have shown that without God, its absurd to condemn acts as right or wrong because societal consensus ultimately wins the day. Again, suppose everyone thought murdering Arabs to the point of annihilation was good, then it would, on atheism, be considered good since there is no transcendent ground on which to base the idea that it is really wrong, independent of what we think.Divine Command Theory:St. Anselm of Canterbury posited, “God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.” Such a being would necessarily have essential properties, one of which is the property of having moral perfection. As Craig puts it: “God is the greatest conceivable being, and it is greater to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to it.” [2] God’s nature is essentially good, and therefore, His commands are not arbitrary, but grounded in His nature. On such a view, God would, by definition, be the paradigm of moral values and the means through which these values are expressed emanate from His divine commands. Since “the good” is grounded as an essential property of God, with God, we have a basis for the existence of OMV. I have therefore provided a grounding for believing that OMV can exist with God. My opponent has offered no explanation for the view that OMV can exist on atheism.Vote for me. [1] Gensler, Harry. “Introduction to Logic: Second Edition.” (Routledge, 2010). p. 4[2] Craig, William Lane. “Subject: Euthyphro Dilemma.” Reasonable Faith Q&A. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...