God Is Necessary For Morality

Pro stated correctly that he has the burden of proof. This means that he must prove that moral objectivity is true and God is necessary, i do not need to prove the inverse. I agree i have not refuted your second premise, in fact i think i agreed with it. My problem was that my agreement requires a specific definition of moral, as you have not rejected my definition i will assume it is the one we are both using and grant your second premise. In response to (1) A) This argument says that if God exists than objective morals exist and are grounded within him. While i disagree with this statement i will not waste time on it as it is irrelevant. You are arguing that God is the only possible source of objective morality. B) Pro seams to of mixed up my explanation for objective morality to the source of human morality. I agree that human morality is not objective morality, however my argument for the existence of an objective morality still stands, and was argued independently of evolution and human morality. Looking at history it is clear that human morality is not objective. For example, their was a time when slavery was moral acceptable, now is not, therefore our morality changed and cannot be objective. C) I agree that free will does not exist. However at the level we are talking about, there are still multiple paths our brains can "calculate" to take, and one of these paths will lead to the lowest value of discomfort calculated by the other brains. Take computers for example. I think we can all agree that they have no free will. If you give a computer a map and ask it to plot a route from point a to point b, there are several routes it could give. However only one route is the objectively fastest, we would say that this is the best route it could give, even though in reality it could of given no other route. Or if it gave a less efficient route we would say it could of given us a better one, even though technically it could have offered no others. In response to (2) again you confuse my explanation for human morality with my explanation for objective morality. Rape is objectively immoral because it causes less good than not raping (or more bad in this context). therefore it is objectively amoral. However, incest is not amoral, as the two people involved are consenting and clearly think that engaging in this action will make them happier than not, and no suffering comes from it. Our disagreement on the subject also proves that human morality is not objective morality. In response to (3) Punishment is irrelevant to morality. Not having a reason to do a moral action does not make that action amoral, and not having a reason not to do an amoral action does not make it moral. Pro states: "without God in the picture it is difficult to understand why would we would have objectively true morals." this does not mean it is impossible, or that our not possessing an alternative proves your side, that is an arguement from ignorance. In response to Pros questions: "What is the basis of objective moral values?" i have already answered this "With or without a God, every action, or series of actions, will create a certain (possibly negative) amount of good. With or without a God, there will be an action, or series of actions, that will create the most good. That action, or series of actions, is the objectively moral one." "What is the basis of human value on atheism?" humans have a concept of suffering "Why ought we to do the right thing and avoid doing the wrong thing?" Irrelevant to the existence of objective morality. As you said objective morality "holds that a moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it...nor does it vanish when an individual or society rejects it." This means that objective morality exists regardless of whether or not we have a reason to behave accordingly. "What is the basis for moral accountability?" again this is irrelevant for the existence of objective morality. Pro has offered no argument against my explanation of objective morality, or if he did it was hidden in his other arguements, Please provide a clear counter argument. I am not talking about my explanation of human morality (which has only been countered by equating human morality with objective morality)