An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God

Definition of Moral from Merriam-Webster: "concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior" [1]Con's definition of Moral is inaccurate. Morals are not simply what people think are right and wrong. Morals are ontological truths about human behavior - whether certain actions of metaphysically good or bad. Ontology deals with the nature of things, things that are objectively true. In fact, I have not confused morals for facts. Facts are studied by ontology. Fact are the things that are objectively true about the universe. For Con to say that the two are not the same is to say that morals are not inherently ontological, which is a red herring. We are not discussing whether or not an objective moral code exists, but rather, for one to exist would God by needed?Continuing from this point, Con stated: "So, because they are not a fact they are subjective but they can become objective if an entire community thinks the same because that would be the ultimate truth."I seem to not be getting through to Con in this matter. I will repeat myself once more since this is the last round. There are two ways for something to be subjective. 1) Epistemologically. This means that the thing in question is a human attempt at understanding metaphysical facts. 2) Inherently subjective. This means that there is no ontological basis for the thing in question. Morals are one of these two things. Con has suggested that morals are subjective in the sense that they have no basis in metaphysical reality. This means that no matter what, no matter how much human beings think something, it does not change the nature of the thing objectively. I strongly urge Con to read Ayn Rand, who (although I have many qualms with objectivism [2]) explains eloquently that objective reality can not be changed by human thought, even if every single living consciousness believes it.Con states: "Pro claims me stating how a subjective code can become objective is not evidence for my side."In fact, I did not claim this wasn't evidence for Con's side. I simply claimed that it was utterly false. Again, human thought can not change facts. They can not turn in to facts. They can not influence facts. Human thought is just that - a thought. Thoughts have no bearing in reality whatsoever. Therefore, the claim that Con has made that somehow if everyone believed in the same moral code that somehow it would become an ontological fact is absurd.Con states: "While this is a true fact he tries to say that because of that trees don't exist and his point is how ridiculous that sounds. How ever he neglects the fact that nobody is denying that trees exist because its a fact that trees. Therefore Pro's point does not stand. and my point stands that empathy and sympathy do disprove an objective moral code."Con missed my point entirely. I was trying to show how claiming that humans have subjective moral codes doesn't disprove the fact that an objective one exists. Besides this, this again does not relate to the argument concerning whether or not God is necessary for objective morals to exist. Con states that 'empathy and sympathy do disprove an objective moral code,' but this is not condusive to the argument. In fact, it runs counter to Con's point in which he has to provide an example for how an objective moral code can exist, not prove that one doesn't.Con states: "Pro starts by saying that since a sociopath does not feel empathy therefore its okay for him to kill in our modern society which is what I was referring to. No, its would be wrong to us because that's what our laws say."Con has been claining that empathy and sympathy are the basis for an objective moral code. The law is not part of this. I provided an example to show that no such objective moral code can exist through empathy and sympathy. I made my point. Defending an objective moral code with the law is futile because people can get away with doing things contrary to what the law finds acceptable. If a sociopath were to kill that person and get away with it, then I fail to see how it would be morally wrong, for justice must back every law.Moving on, when Con talks about my syllogism example, he misses my point again. I was not trying to write a coherent syllogism, I was trying to demonstrate how a lack of definition of terms can lead to a seemingly sound argument. For example, if one were to interpret my first premise "All mammals exhibit homosexual tendencies" as "All mammalian species have members that exhibit homosexual tendancies" then the argument would follow as long as the false equivocation was made. My point in forming this (obviously) fallacious argument was to show that Con's argument was equally fallacious - that the codes that the dictators formed were not objective ones, which is what Con has to show. Con has to provide a scenario where God was not used to back an objective moral code. Con then talks about my response to the second syllogism, concerning how the famous dictators of history formed subjective moral codes for their respective states and not objective ones. I don't quite understand what Con was trying to say due to his wording and run-on sentence, but if I am correct, Con has missed my point again. I will more clearly state it. Con has to show that an objective moral code can exist without the existence of God. He provided an argument that showed how dictators formed their moral codes, and in the process falsely equivocated the subjective codes made with a potentially objective one. That is why his argument is unsound.Con talked about the fundamental idea behind what a law is, and I believe we reached a consensus that laws must be backed by justice. However, no human justice system is perfect. This relates to my original second point. The idea of an afterlife that is inferred from God's existence provides us with a perfect justice system. No human justice system is perfect, therefore no law is absolute and based in a perfect epistemological understanding of ontology. It can therefore not be the basis of an objective moral code.Finally, Con states: "Again you asked what makes the murder of the child is wrong, the society you live in says its wrong."Allow me to recap the definition of objective that I presented earlier in the debate: "based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings." Society (the general consensus) saying that something is wrong does not make it wrong. Likewise, society saying something is right does not make it right. At least, not in an objective sense. For instance, a while ago in the US, slavery was legal and society said it was alright to own slaves. Today, it is highly frowned upon. Slavery can not be both right and wrong. This would therefore lead to the conclusion that society's opinions do not provide a basis for an objective moral code; it would be based in opinion instead, which infers that something is not objective, as per the definition of objective.To finish, I would like to say that it is my belief that at no point in this debate did Con make a sound argument for an Objective moral code existing without the existence of God. He did not even attempt to respond to my initial to positives made in Round 2, and he failed to rebut soundly my two negatives. His entire argument was based on: 1) Societal influence, and 2) Human emotions of sympathy and empathy. Both of these act contrary to the definition of objective that I provided, as I believe I soundly showed over the course of my three rebutting arguing rounds.Finally, thank you to Con for this debate. Hopefully we can argue again in the future.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...