There Is A Moral Proof Of God!

Sir, this was not an acceptance round, you had to give a refutation. I believe I have fulfilled my duty in making clear the premises and showing how they lead to a conclusion. It would have only been right for you to at the very least point out to me which premise is unclear. Or are they equally unclear? In addition for understanding I posted my essay which does in fact give the entire argument in more than 4000 characters, in which I think you can find something. While it is not part of the argument, it is there exactly to elaborate the premises a bit. Otherwise you can look up Kant's Moral Proof. My first premise was that if there are absolute morals there will be a God. We show this firstly through the summum bonum and how only God can give us summum bonum (the highest good) and that is that happiness arises out of virtue. Secondly objective morals would entail that they transcend space and time, God by definition transcends space and time, so only He could have given us morals. I beg of my honourable opponent that he not commit the "is-ought" mistake, though I am sure he is well versed it in all ready. Sir my second and most important premise is that morals are absolute. For this I give a number of arguments, firstly I assert that morality cannot be realized from empirical means. Here (as in the essay) I would like to clarify that there is a difference between moral and good. Good entails that which was most productive, morality is based purely on intention. It is shown this way that if your 6 year old relative spent all day making something for you, but burnt the dish he would not be an immoral person. He would most certainly be a bad cook, but not an immoral one. Since intention cannot be empirically gauged morality is above empirical scrutiny. It is a fact of philosophy that if our knowledge of something is not empirical then its bases must be innate. If it is innate then it must be absolute for innate dreams come from the Soul. The fact that in the modern world we have come to different beliefs is due to imagination (see philosophical meaning). As the proposition I have the right to define terms, you may challenge them but as soon as you give an alternative the onus probandi will fall on you. I do not wish to reiterate and I cannot refute for you have not posted anything, so I will attempt to give an example. Sir, it is so that man in his years has envisioned aliens or the ever popular Pokemon series for kids. Is it not that they resemble our animals? It is simply a mix up: the reason remains that man has limited means to gain knowledge. And the questions remain tell me if morality is subjective then when is moral to rape a 5 year old, murder a child and/or when it is justifiable to commit genocide. Could the holocaust where hundreds of anti-Arians were killed, tortured, raped, in any way moral? In fact you already have certain morals, certain guidelines which you accept as absolute. The opponent must, at pain of loosing, show how is it that there are no absolute morals. The onus upon me is to show that there is an absolute moral. I have told you the system, and given examples. It is now to him, good luck sir! Ajab