Morality cannot logically exist without God

1. ) Questions In the closing argument, Pro asserts that I have not answered any of his questions. To the contrary, I have. If one looks back at the arguments, I address how morality has been developed through evolution. Throughout our evolution, mankind has been refining our morality. In the question of rape, it is immoral, for it causes suffering to another being. We have come this far to realize that suffering is "wrong", as we have developed empathy for our fellow humans. And it is much better that we keep on evolving or morality, keep on setting new standards, rather than getting it from a very old (and morally questionable) book. 2. ) Slavery and Adultery/Homosexuality Pro stated that he found that keeping slaves, and killing adulterers and homosexuals, does not violate his moral standards, for they happened in Israel, 5000 BC. Shouldn't all the morality in a book ordained by God be followed throughout all time? Since the Bible (according to Christians) is the "word of God" himself, those laws should be implemented even in the present. But, our moral standards have evolved throughout that time (in a 21st century, first world society) to see that killing adulterers and homosexuals, and keeping slaves is immensely immoral. He states in his closing argument that human beings have inherent value, since it is ordained by God. The very same God is the one that condones the killing of adulterers and homosexuals, and slavery; and for slaves to be treated like property (thus stripping them of their inherent value). There is a contradiction right here, as these two moral values do not match. Many atheists (which I am not, for the record) also see that humans have inherent value, but they get that from their own innate sense of morality, not because some God told them it. 3. ) Buddhism This argument alone invalidates the notion of God and morality. Its simple; morality can come from an enlightened being. Pro asks on what basis is this being enlightened. Then I ask on what basis can morality come from God, since there is no basis for God's existence. Here, just one example is needed to invalidate the claim Pro is making. And I provided it. If Pro questions the basis of enlightenment, than the basis of God itself is questionable. Thus, by questioning enlightenment, Pro digs his own grave, for the notion of God is than under question. And I urge Pro to read up on Buddhism. It actually is quite a fascinating religion. 4. ) Conclusion I have provided arguments of how objective morality can come without a God, and have even provided the example of Buddhism (a notion is that Buddha is a god, which is actually Hinduism's version, not the Buddhist version. In Buddhism, the Buddha is venerated as an enlightened being, not a God). Thus, I have met Pro's challange, and have even provided REAL LIFE examples that invalidate Pro's claim of objective morality coming only from God. I have also challanged Pro's morality, and how it contradicts the Bible, which, quote, he says "I believe the entire bible is the inspired word of God", yet his own moral standards contradicts that of the Bible (which cannot be taken in context, but in this case, has to be considered the universal standard, for, to pro, it is the word of God).