The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

I thank izbo10 for challenging me to this debate. I will argue that the Moral Argument for G-d's existence is not only valid, but sound; thus proving that G-d exists. If Objective Moral Facts Exists, G-d Exists. Objective Moral Facts Exists. Therefore, G-d Exists. What are objective moral facts?When I say "objective," I refer to the doctrine that X is true regardless of any human opinion. For example, to say genocide is morally wrong is to say that "it is wrong for anyone to commit genocide," that is X is universally undesirable, that it is wrong to do X in every situation. (p1) If Objective Moral Facts Exists, God Exists Part 1: Degree of Incumbency According to this premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these have their foundation in the nature of God. This is because morality is prespective and it is expressed to us in the form of statements such as: "Thou shalt not lie," and "Thou shalt not torture babies for fun," etc. When you say do not do X because it is morally wrong, it carry's a degree of incumbency--that is, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communications, however, can only originate from an intellegent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Hence, it is a fact that moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. [1] Part 2: Human Minds DisagreeIt is a fact of life that human minds disagree. Because of that undeniable fact, it is forced that humans could not have originated from human conception. Indeed, the Universal Moral Laws must have originated from a transcendent and all-knowing/all-loving being. If two people disagreed, then who should we trust for our moral values? If two cultures disagree, then which culture should we trust? If there was an economic meltdown and social robbery, cannibalism, and murder became norm; would it become morally acceptable? By no means. (p2) Objective Moral Facts Exist Given my partner's record from the forums, it is clear that this is not in dispute. Nevertheless, I shall still defend premise 2. Part 1: Epistemic NormativityFor there to be a rational conversation, there must be certain norms abotu how we should not think. Indeed, as agents with advanced cognitive faculties, we ought to believe what is true and reject what is not true. Take a look at these syllogism: If X is true, then we should believe X. X is true. Therefore, we should believe X. If one asks the question "But why should I be rational?" is already reasoning within a rational framewrok, because his queswtion presupposes the existence of objective rational norms. Take a look at this syllogism: If Y is false, then Y should be rejected. Y is false. Therefore, Y should be rejected. Indeed, the very act of disputing affirms the existence of objectivity. Imagine this following conversation:Mr.Infidel: Izbo10, what do you think of my argument from moral facts?Izbo10: Indeed, it is a sound argument--your conclusion was well-argued, and I see no problems with it.Mr.Infidel: So, do you now believe in God?Izbo10: NoMr.Infidel: Why not?Izbo10: Because I have no duty to embrace the truth.This conversation would be truly bizar and would undeniably prove that izbo10 is an idiot and a troll; however, Izbo10 is the smartest person on DDO and therefore would not have such a conversation. Summary: Izbo10 needs to either debunk premise 1 and premise 2, which premise 2 is agreed upon as evident through his recent forum rants. Secondly, izbo10 needs to justify objective morality without God. Thank you! References[1] Kohai-vs.-Contradiction: "There Is No God." http://www.debate.org... [2] Contradiction-vs.-EthanHuOnDebateOrg: "It is probable that objective moral facts exist." http://www.debate.org...