If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

BOP:He once against asserts that “its possible that OMV exist even if God does not exist.” He continuously drops the analysis I presented that says that it is not enough to deny an opponents argument, since the conclusion might still be true. In order for him to prove possibility, he must erect a warrant of his own. Simply asserting that “God does not exist” and “OMV exist” as not being explicitly contradictory does not mean his argument is true. If it is the case that OMV do not exist, then his position is just not true, and he has yet to present one single foundation on which to base OMV on atheism.EvolutionI don’t see the point of his analysis about naturalism/atheism here. My point is that on both worldviews, OMV do not exist. Please extend this argument, he fails to refute it. I argued (1) that without God, OMV must, by definition, stem from something physical and contingent. This is problematic because that would make Objective Moral Values contingent, which seems absurd (and is a contradiction). (2) I also argued that evolution is the reason for which humans have come into being (after abiogenesis), which means the moral foundations with which we live our lives necessarily depend on evolution. But if this is the case, OMV cannot exist since evolution (a) does not provide objective values (they might have been otherwise) and (b) our values are the sole product of our coming into being by evolution. Thus, it is a contradiction to say that “OMV exist” and “God does not exist” since the only reason we could have values in the first place is by evolution. These were the justifications I gave for the following premises, none of which were refuted:1.If OMV cannot be grounded in evolution on atheism, OMV do not exist2. OMV cannot be grounded in evolution on atheism3. Therefore, OMV do not exist.OMV are values that are binding independent of the beliefs of beings that are subject to them. But this cannot be true on atheism/naturalism, since by definition these values are contingent on living, rational things existing. SpeciesismCon engages in semantics about what it means to “wrongfully kill” someone. Two responses: (1) This is irrelevant since no matter the definition, my argument is that the definitions are subjective and preference in favor of one particular definition is purely based on societal consensus, which is arbitrary. (2) TURN: Once again, Con shoots himself since he cannot even ground something like murder as being objectively wrong. Our definitions might be different, in which case we follow a different moral code. He tacitly admits that these values are based on subjective definitions, which proves my case. He then says I conflate atheism/naturalism. No, I contend both are vacuous when it comes to the existence of OMV.Here we have another reason to vote for me: If God does not exist, doing X or condemning X as wrong is to be guilty of speciesism. He does not answer the thought experiment I gave:Suppose aliens came to earth and call them A. A’s intelligence compared to humans is equivalent to the difference of intelligence between humans and cows, such that A is significantly more intelligent than humans. A loves human meat in the same way humans love cow meat. On atheism, there is no objective way to condemn this action unless one appeals to speciesism OR claiming that rational beings are somehow inherently valuable, both of which are arbitrary. A disagrees. Moreover, it is blatantly speciesist when linked with the evolution argument: we think it permissible to eat cows because it is ingrained into us that they are a good source of food, like other animals. Which means the justification, on evolution, we have for eating cows is the same as A eating us. The problem is that you cannot base OMV on evolution, and it is therefore speciest to say that our values are right when we have no objective justification for them. My opponent concedes this. Absurdity of Condemnation“Do we need God to have objective facts like the the world not being flat ? If not, then why do we need God to have objective moral facts ?”This just begs the question! We have objective reasons for thinking the world is not flat. We have NO objective reasons for thinking OMV exist on atheism! That is my point. You assume that moral facts exist and then just assert that they are on par with observable, physical phenomena. Moreover, what is and what ought to be do not always correspond. What is, is. What ought to be does not make any sense on atheism, which is what this argument proves. Its absurd to say X is wrong on atheism since the only foundations for believing X is wrong is that most people agree! He never responds to the fact that if everyone believed X was good, X would be considered good, which is subject to change. To say massacring population group A by population group B is wrong, requires some external, transcendent check, without which this condemnation is purely contingent on one side winning over the other. Our values depend on us, which makes not NOT objective. “If OMV exist necessarily, then they exist regardless of whether other things exist or not, that's what it means to exist "necessarily".”Yeah. IF OMV exist, they are necessary. The question is the antecedent of that conditional: do they exist? My argument is that they CANNOT exist unless there are beings who are expected to abide by them, otherwise they just exist immaterially, without any parts, which is absurd on atheism since they would have to be grounded in some part of the physical world. But if it is the case that these values are contingent on the existence of beings, then they cannot be objective. So he fails to refute the argument. “No, a certain moral theory says that societal consensus is the basis for condemnation, Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God/s, Atheism in of its self makes no moral claims.”You are incapable of comprehending the argument. I did NOT say atheism says X is moral; in fact, I argue it cant! However, my claim is that IF atheism is true, the only basis for thinking that X ought to be condemned is societal consensus. We see it everywhere. If 99% believed fornication before marriage was immoral, and banned it, the 1% would still be subjected to the will of the consensus view, which might shift 100 years from now! You have failed to give one single avenue that OMV exist in the absence of God. Societal consensus yields no way to affirm OMV. Divine Command:Extend the TURN. He is quite right, who am I to say Mother T > Adolf Hitler. Who am I to say that X attribute is good and therefore God has it. On atheism, it is arbitrary and subjective. He shoots himself in the foot again. “You wouldn't accept that kind of logic if some one argued that Hitler is "essentially" good where Hitler is used as the moral standard of what is good.”Do you know what it means to be “essentially such and such?” I don’t think so. Hitler is not essentially good because he is human (lol) and humans are not essentially good or evil, since they can be either. Moreover, Hitler was not essentially good because he was evil, on my view! But you are right, its nonsensical on your view to claim that he was evil, since others can say he was good!There is nothing incoherent about saying God is essentially good, and goodness emanates from the necessary goodness of His nature. This is not arbitrary and I therefore have provided a sound foundation for OMV. But even if I have not, he has given NO REASON for thinking OMV exist on atheism, and he has provided NO foundation for thinking they can. On the contrary, I have given several reasons to think otherwise. Thanks.