God is required for morality or morals to exist

Let's analyze them. R1: Pro claims 1) Obligations are contingent upon a personnel entity. 2) Moral values are obligatory in that they pesrcribe behaviour. 3) Moral values transcend imperfect human persons. 4) Therefore a morally perfect transcendent personnel being (God) exists. I can be in agreement with premise #1 and somewhat agree with # 2 but morals aren't obligatory across the board as different cultures view morals and ethics differently, this is also another argument against a single objective standard from a God. How does one say that moral values transcend persons? Lets define the usage of transcend. tran"scend verb 1) be or go beyond the range or limits 2) surpass (a person or an achievement). We can concede on a prima facia basis that humans are not perfect. Pro gives us some quotes but does not fully explain a) how morals go beyond the range or limits of human reason or thought, or b) how they surpass human ability to conceive of using utilitarian principles, basic reason, or empathy. I have shown in my base argument that God(of the Christian Bible since that was the agreed form of God stipulated to) in fact, is okay with murder yet every human society known to exist prohibits intentional killing with very few exceptions. At a minimum to assert that an objective moral standard from a single God exists one would need to show that moral standards are identical across all societies. Pro has not done this. Even if premises 1-3 of this argument are considered to be true, the conclusion of a transcendent personal being(God) can't be proven from this. You can't assume a single being it could be multiple Gods that agree on a moral code to give to humans. Also, there is nothing in Pro's argument that would necessitate that the being be a personal God. IF we assume 1-3 is true it could indeed have been a deistic impersonal God. This argument is insufficient to prove God's existence which is only a subtopic of this debate. R2: Pro Claims: 1)On atheism there is absolutely no grounds for the existence of objective morality. 2)Objective morality exists. 3)Therefore atheism is false. (God exists) Yet we know that objective moral standards can be developed based on agreement of whole societies of humans to standards based on the greatest positive outcome for society. We know that murder is wrong and agree on it because having rampant murder threatens human self preservation and happiness. We can develop standards based on reason. John Stuart Mill famously argued that we can know what is good and what is bad behavior based on outcomes and consequences. We can use that learning to develop objective models of how man ought to behave. This does not require at God or agent exterior to man's reason. On Pro's premise #2 Objective standards of morality exist yes, because humans have created them over time based on utilitarian assessment of behavior that will bring the most positive outcomes for man. Again even if Pro's premise #1 and #2 are correct, how does this lead one to a God specifically the God of the Bible? Pro has not shown in this argument that a God is necessary for the creation of objective moral standards. One could argue that using utilitarian principles mean that the moral standards are subjective however they are not. The greatest positive outcome for the greatest number is not dependent of personal feelings or assessment but rather the ability to reason and use data independent of any one individual's feelings. In both of Pro's arguments they continue to assert claims about objective morality which I have refuted. However, it should be noted the topic of the debate is not about objective morality specifically but rather morality in general. I look forward to the next round.