The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

Because he did not post any arguments in the previous round, I suppose he was using that for terms. 1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values & duties do not exist. This simply does not logically follow. It is like saying, "If the objective moral ferries do not exist, then objective moral values & duties do not exist. Moreover, I wish to respond to this argument using the Euthyphor's dilemma; namely, is good and evil good and evil because God says so, or because it is already good and evil? There is a serious problem: If good and evil is good and evil simply because God says so, we beg the question under what basis does God determine the good and the evil? If it is subjective to God, then how can it be objective to us? If it is already good and evil, then there is no reason to conclude the basic premise of the DCT. Let’s further consider the premises of the DCT. How does one determine these objective moral facts? Under what basis should we choose the Bible over the Quran, Book of Mormon, or any other ancient document that claims to be of divine revelation? [1] Some have responded in saying that this is a false dilemma because there is a third option; namely, that good and evil is determined by God’s character. However, this does not adequately refute the dilemma, as Michael Martin notes in his 1997 essay “Atheism, Christianity, and Rape”:[2] “[A]ppealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? Is there an independent standard of good or does God's character set the standard? If God's character is the way it is because it is good, then there is an independent standard of goodness by which to evaluate God's character. For example, suppose God condemns rape because of His just and merciful character. His character is just and merciful because mercy and justice are good. Since God is necessarily good, God is just and merciful. According to this independent standard of goodness, being merciful and just is precisely what a good character involves. In this case, even if God did not exist, one could say that a merciful and just character is good. Human beings could use this standard to evaluate peoples' character and actions based on this character. They could do this whether or not God exists. Suppose God's character is good simply because it is God's character. Then if God's character were cruel and unjust, these attributes would be good. In such a case God might well condone rape since this would be in keeping with His character. But could not one reply that God could not be cruel and unjust since by necessity God must be good? It is true that by necessity God must be good. But unless we have some independent standard of goodness then whatever attributes God has would by definition be good: God's character would define what good is. It would seem that if God could not be cruel and unjust, then God's character must necessarily exemplify some independent standard of goodness. Using this standard one could say that cruelty and injustice are not good whether God exists or not. ” Moreover, this attempt to avoid this dilemma has more issues than the one Michael Martin listed above. Michael continues:[3] “It assumes that there would not be an objective morality without God. However, this seems to beg the question against an objective atheistic ethics. After all, wht would the nonexistence of God adversely affect the goodness of mercy, compassion, and justice? Yet, this is precisely what would happen if being part of God’s character created the goodness of mercy, compassion, and justice. This point can perhaps be made in another way. One could affirm the objective immorality of rape and deny the existence of God with perfect consistency. There is no contradiction in claiming, ‘Rape is objectively evil and God does not exist. ’” 2. Objective moral values & duties do exist. I concede this premise. I will bring forth my moral theories in the next round if my partner desires. I have shown that premise 1 is not sound and doesn’t logically follow. Therefore, I urge a vote for con. [1] Martin, Michael. "The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God. " Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism. The Secular Web, 1996. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <. http://www.infidels.org...;. [2] Martin, Michael. "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape (1997). " Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape. The Internet Infidels, 1997. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <. http://www.infidels.org...;. [3] Ibid.