The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

Summary of the debate and the failure of Premise 1.Socialpinko's central argument in Round 2 depends on the strength of his premises, and it was his burden to show the probability of his premises, or else the argument fails. To reinforce Premise 1, Socialpinko argued under the heading, "P1: Objective moral facts exist," presuming that there "is no categorical difference between moral and sense perception." I challenged this premise, listing two points that typically characterize sense perception but not moral perception. Socialpinko responded by finding an exception to the general pattern: rules of logic. He did not demonstrate the probability of his own premise, but he challenged my proposed pattern by finding a special exception. Rules of logic can be given a special exception because it is part of the framework of all objective existence, but Socialpinko has not argued why morality should be given a similar special exception. On the contrary, Socialpinko has simply presumed it. If he were to likewise argue that the value of money is objective, then the same arguments would carry the same weight. He may claim that "there is no categorical difference between money and sense perception." And, the position would carry a similar flaw: the value of money does not fit the near-universal patterns of objectivity, and there is no apparent reason why the value of money should be given a special exception.Syllogism standsI gave a deductive argument for the subjectivity of morals, and Socialpinko challenged the second premise ("Morality is a system of values concerning human actions"), not by arguing against it, but simply by contradicting it. I claim that the premise is a prima facie impression, because the seeming truth of the statement is seemingly self-evident, much like saying, "Apples are food." That isn't to say that it is therefore impossible that morality could be something other than a system of values concerning human actions, but it is the responsibility of the participant who disagrees with the prima facie impressions to provide sufficient reasoning to a non-prima-facie position, and Socialpinko has not done so. My argument stands, and morality is apparently subjective.No alternative testThe prima facie disadvantage of Socialpinko's position is highlighted by his refusal to formulate his own better test of objective reality. Merely by finding a special exception to my test, he excludes any test for objective reality, and he hopes that his Premise 1 stands just because he says so. Again, similar argumentation may be employed for the conclusion that the value of money is objective. Socialpinko would likewise point out the same inconsistency to the best test of objectivity, and he would likewise say, "Without evidence to the contrary, my premise is valid." Therefore, he would conclude, a one-dollar note is worth one dollar by its inherent objective nature. ConclusionI claim that a seemingly-improbable position should be defended with arguments better than pointing out an inconsistency of the best test that would seem to oppose the position.Thank you, Socialpinko, for such a stimulating debate.