God is real

So now I will give my defense. I will give the moral argument for the existence of God. My opponent assumes that there is a moral standard in his argument, as he labels things as being "wrong". His moral argument presupposes an absolute standard of morality. If he did not, then his arguments would be invalid, and his standard of wrong would be meaningless. My opponent's argument proves God exists, because God is the only possible source for an absolute moral standard. I will also address the problem of evil that confuses people. People commonly say that God would make everything perfect and would stop "bad" things from happening. There are many problems with this. This presupposes that people "deserve" a perfect life. But from the position that I am defending, people are inherently bad, not good. God created free will, people are not mindless robots. People chose to live their life in rebellion against God (as seen in Genesis). Evil existing in the world proves that God exists. The only way that "bad" things could exist is if there is a standard of right and wrong, and this standard of right and wrong can only exist if God exists. You could claim that "God wouldn't do that", but then you would claim that you know what an all knowing, all powerful God would choose to do if he existed (It isn't very likely that you have the ability to determine/predict what an all powerful being that you don't even believe in would do). My opponents own argument proves God's existence. I will elaborate on this more. We start with objective morality (which my opponent uses and assumes in his argument). This standard must either have an impersonal source (derived from "nature"), or a personal source (determined from a person/being). The source is personal, because if it was impersonal, then there would be no reason for following it. It would also be a law, like the law of gravity, which we can't break. But Morality is a standard that we can go against, so the source cannot be impersonal. A personal source would have meaning, because we would have some kind of responsibility to this personal source. Because that standard of objective morality is from a personal source, it must be an objective personal source. This objective personality must be all powerful and have created everything, or else the objective moral standard would cease to be objective in its application. If this objective personality wasn't all powerful and didn't create everything, then moral standards would not be absolute and all applying. Because this objective personality is all powerful, and created everything, the attributes of being all existing and all knowledgeable would follow. These are important attributes for morality to always be objective, and have an objective, personal source. Without them, the objective personality would not be qualified to be the objective, all powerful personality that is required by objective moral standards. Objective moral standards are between individuals/persons and are relational. That would mean that objective moral standards must have existed befor this objective personality created all things, or else this objective moral standard would be arbitrary. From this reasoning, this objective, single personality must also be described and exist as a single objective personality, and yet also be descried in 2 or more persons. If not, then objective moral standards would become an arbitrary standard that was created when the objective personality created all things, and at this point, moral standards would cease to be objective. All of these attributes describe God as known from the Bible. He is the absolute source of all goodness, he is all powerful, created all things, and is one God, described as 3 persons (father, son, holy spirit). Morality presupposes the Biblical God. For my opponent to argue against this, he would have to abandon right and wrong, in which case, he would have to abandon his own argument. Also, reasoning/logic presupposes objective moral standards. For what reason "should" we accept a conclusion that was "logically" determined? Terms such as "should" are meaningless unless there is an objective moral standard. If their wasn't, then no one could say that we "should" be logical, and not live in a false world of our imagination. My opponent expects us to accept his conclusion based on the reason he gives. But without an absolute moral standard (which presupposes God), my opponent's argument would be meaningless, and there would be no reason to accept it. Why should we? Well we should accept a conclusion taken from the premises, if there is an objective moral standard that gives terms like "should" meaning. Without morality, reasoning (and debating) fails. Without morality, no one "should" be logical, logic would be arbitrary. My opponents argument proves that God exists. He attempts to use reasoning and morality in his argument, which presuppose that the Biblical God (which I am defending), exists. The only way to argue this is to abandon reasoning itself, and accept all things (especially this debate) as being arbitrary.