Morality is Grounded in God.

Sorry for the uncharacteristically late resp. Because I have stuff going on. 1. "If my opponent would like to discuss the arguments for the existence of the soul then we shall do that in another debate" === if we have to debate it, It is NOT FACT. And thus "women have souls" is not FACTUALLY CORRECT. And also, Calm down, The voters would know. " I am not saying that Religion is the basis for Morality I said Theism was and I made a distinction between Theism and Religion" == fine, Theism is the basis for morality. Still, There are so many theistic beliefs out there. And each of them differs in the moral oughts so theism cannot be the basis also because which theistic beliefs should i follow? "I made a distinction that you didn't defeat and so the argument still stands" == yea, You made a distinction, Not an argument so MY ARGUMENT still stands. "However, Do not! Voters, Please take note. " == sigh, Don't feed voters opinions. You're underestimating their intelligence to make a fair judgement on their own. We're old enough not to play the bullied victim role anymore. 2. " I showed how the argument from moral reactions can be treated as an empirical proof for the existence of moral realism. This can be applied to all moral oughts including thou shalt not steal. " == NO. First of all let me define ""WRONG"":"something we ought not do". Thus statements like "killing is wrong" are imperative because they prescribe what we ought not do. Pro hasn't show me how can IMPERATIVE statements like "killing is wrong" are VERIFIABLE. "Killing creates suffering" that is a verifiable statements. To go from that statement to "Killing is wrong", You must make the additional assumption that "Creating Suffering is wrong". You see, You can only verify that "Killing creates suffering", You cannot verify that "we shouldn't create suffering" because the very nature of IMPERATIVE sentence is that they are not verifiable. That is a linguistic FACT. You have to somehow show that IMPERATIVE sentence are verifiable or that moral laws are not imperative. SECONDLY, You said obj morality can't be originated from humans, But then humans serve as empirical proof for obj morality? " Humans ought to love and care for innocent children instead of torturing them. " == I can explain this in evolutionary terms perfectly fine. A society torturing the next generation COULDN'T persist. "You could argue that stealing is wrong because it goes against your self-interest that doesn't mean it isn't objectively wrong" === why does morality has to be 4. "What? No Scientific laws are descriptive epistemic and moral laws are not scientific they do not describe what happens they prescribe what ought to happen. Please stop confusing the terms. Voters, Please take notice. " == give me one epistemic fact and the definition of "epistemic fact". 5. "I have no way of confirming that your father is an engineer but here's the thing is your father the only engineer? No, He is not and so while your father may no do something other might. Depends on what throw I am trying to make. " === hm, This is not a debatable point. It is a testable point. Think of how long it takes for human to realize the earth is spherical. Before that, People believe the earth is flat because it feels flat, If the earth feels spherical, It woundn't take so long. Plus how were houses built before PEOPLE REALIZE THE EARTH WAS SPHERICAL? You see, Earth sphericality does not effect house building. Still you have my point about constant gravitational acceleration to refute. The bigger claim here is that what people behave like has nothing to do with what is. If people in Vietnam behave as though Buddha was god, It means he is GOd? "Depends on what throw I am trying to make. " == if you can throw far enough so that the curvature of the earth have to be taken into account, I want to see you one the news. 6. "The distinction isn't blurred we did not make moral laws just as we didn't make the laws of Logic we simply discovered these things. Basically" == this is like saying "the distinction is clear because i say so. " you simply reiterate your claims here. "Beethoven made the 5th symphony but he did not make the notes themselves alone he only took the notes and arranged them to make his symphony. " === when did I say he make the notes themselves? What does it mean to MAKE a musical note anyway? So beethoven made the 5th symphony by arranging the notes? See? Made and discover the arrangement are not mutually exclusive. You used them in one sentence. If they were mutually exclusive, Your sentence would make no sense because it would violate the laws either A or not A. Since they are not mutually exclusive, Its not like things are either made or discovered. You haven't create a criteria for me to say whether A is created or discovered. You claim there's a distinction then name the criteria for that distinction. 7. "You can't have Moral Convergence and Progress without that rationality. The point is that If humans are progressing and converging in their morals than that means that we are working towards an objective standard" == again, Unverifiable statements. You said we're moving toward an objective standard. Do you know what that objective standard is? If you dont know what it is then how do you know we're moving closer to it? Do i know im moving closer to your house if i dont know where it is? 8. "No Evil is in the ACTIONS of Rational Agents, Not the Rational Agents themselves. " == more nonsense. What does it mean for EVIL to be IN THE ACTIONS? Can you verify? No because the objective standard of good and evil is not something we have access to. "Conclusion: My opponent still hasn't defeated my arguments and can do better. Please try again. " == sigh. The voters can make a decision for themselves. This is a formal debate, Not an argument. We're not competing to see who can make more accusation to the other side.