God exists

My opponent says that the universe is improbable but not impossible. Well, The odds are one trillion trillion trillion times below a statistical impossibility so. . . He states that morality exists in DNA and culture. As for DNA, I've given evidence to point out that morality is in fact entirely absent from DNA. If morality existed human DNA then my argument would be bunk and my opponents next argument about my reference point argument would stand. But morality doesn't exist in DNA so the DNA reference point doesn't exist and it can't exist in culture without a preexistent reference point. No, Trees do not have to be the same shape and have the same growth rate. But they are still objectively trees. And there are certain objective properties that are constant among trees. Again, Merely because some groups of people may get the morality inherent in the moral universe wrong doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If morality exists in any form then objective morality must exist. If morality is subjective then there is no morality because there can be no good reason for adhering to any moral philosophy. Therefore, If murder is bad at all, Then objective morality exists. Otherwise murder is just bad in your opinion which, For some reason, Is prevalent across all cultures and most people in the history of the world in the absence of any genetic component. Opinions don't work like that. You could make the argument that the idea that murder is bad rises from the concept of what's good for society. But this kind of Utilitarian argument rests even in itself on objective morality. Every Utilitarian system of morality needs to have an underlying hierarchy of objective values through which we measure what is best for society. Next, My opponent argues that all humans need for a reference point in order to conceive morality is the ground and ourselves. Okay, Then why can't a blind man who has the ground and himself conceive color? It turns out that dirt is neither a reference point for morality or color and that the human mind is incapable of coming up with fictitious ideas from nowhere. Also, Sure we started building with stone, But stone had to exist before we could use it. In a way, We needed to have a reference point for stone. Much in the same way, Morality had to exist before we could start using it. As for my opponents next point that morality is just an idea, Useless without a person and that dies when an individual dies. First as to the idea that systems of morality are useless without people. Okay. So is a pencil. Does that mean that it's not objectively a pencil? That the absence of a hand to use it to write then makes the pencil not exist? If a God exists, Then he developed an objective morality not just on a whim but to be put into practice by his creation. Morality is, In a sense, A utility. Something to be used to form the bedrock of a civilization. He also argues that morality dies when a civilization dies or an individual dies. Except it doesn't. The same patterns continuously appear throughout history regardless of any civilizations contact with another. Ideas don't die. Sometimes they go dormant, But that doesn't mean they don't exist. This is especially true for systems of morality which, Due to the existence of a reference point, Can be conceived by any civilization. Now, No religious person will argue that just because objective morality exists that therefore all civilizations will follow or even discover it. Because human nature is in itself immoral. Every religion from Christianity to Islam to Buddhism agree that humans have to struggle not to be bad. This principle of Total Depravity that John Calvin highlighted is actually mostly universal. I actually already addressed his altruism point earlier. The Utilitarianism part of my argument works here. Again, Waters nature is determined by a set of natural laws. No known natural law determines the nature of DNA. DNA's nature just exists on its own In a highly improbable fashion that suggests, As Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, As well as with chemistry and biology. " This is because no natural law dictates the way that biology works at its base level, In DNA or RNA.