The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

This has been a wonderful debate. Shame there is only one more round after this.Objections to my testSocialpinko objects to my test for objective existence with two points:(1) He points out that it is a test for knowledge of objective existence, not a test for objective existence.(2) He points out that the test would require us to believe that such as mathematical and logical laws (such as the Law of Identity) do not objectively exist.For the first point, I say that plausibility is a necessary criterion for deciding probability, and a test of plausibility necessarily requires patterns of observations.For the second point, I say that the test holds true for merely most of the instances (I introduced the test with the word "typically"), and special exceptions require special reasons. Mathematics is based on basic rules of logic (http://plato.stanford.edu...), and basic logic is granted a special exception because it is the framework of everything objective--the physical universe. If entities are objective, then it follows that its framework is likewise objective, and that is why we would grant rules of logic special exception to my criteria. If a proposed set of "moral facts" is objective, then it is another special exception, but does it likewise have a special reason? If so, then what is that special reason? If a poor special reason is given, then Premise 1 remains an implausible assertion.Subjective moralityI claimed that the morality is closely analogous to other systems of values, and the model of subjective morality is both coherent and probable on the face. Socialpinko said in response that changing morality is not proof for subjective morality because the same can be said for scientific beliefs. I say in response: scientific beliefs really are both changeable and subjective. This not nearly the same as saying that the targets of scientific inquiry (fixed in time and space) are either changeable or subjective. Socialpinko's reasoning is grossly muddled. He did not successfully address the prima facie claim that morality is closely analogous to other systems of values.Argument concerning valuesI proposed that a good analogy to morality is the value of money. Socialpinko said that this analogy does not prove anything. Yes, this was just a statement of an analogy, not an argument, though I was hoping that the argument can be inferred from the analogy. I will now turn this analogy into an explicit argument.1) All systems of values are subjective.2) Morality is a system of values concerning human actions.3) Therefore, morality is subjective.If Socialpinko disagrees with Premise 1, then he should explain why morality is a special exception to the otherwise-universal pattern that systems of values are subjective. If he disagrees with Premise 2, then he should explain how morality is not a system of values. If he agrees with the premises but not the conclusion, then he should explain how the deductive logic fails (see http://www.sjsu.edu...).By the way, that argument is the reason why morality is not like an apple.Challenge: make your own testSince Socialpinko does not prefer my test for objectivity, then he should propose his own test. The test should be fair, and an independant thinker should be able to use this test in order to rank both apples and "moral facts" as objective but the value of money as subjective.Since this next round will be his last, I will leave voters to judge whether or not this challenge is fulfilled. If Socialpinko does not fulfill this challenge, then it speaks to the incoherence of his premise that "Objective moral facts exist."