If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

BOP & Logical PossibilitiesPro says " It is not enough to merely assert something exists in the absence of arguments in support of a position. In order to show that something is true, you cannot just refute arguments about how it is false; you must erect a case of your own to prove that it is true. "I said its possible that OMV can exist even if God does not exist. I previously showed that their is no explicit contradiction between these two statements......1) God does not exist2) OMV existPro says "He must show that 2 is true, because on naturalism, evolution is the reason we have moral values at all;"Cool story, and entirely irrelevant which I will explain in detail next.Evolution, Atheism and NaturalismLets for argument sake agree that OMV can't exist by evolution. Does this show that OMV can't exist absent God ? No it doesn't because Evolution, Atheism and Naturalism are entirely different things.....1) Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. [1]2) Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, [2]3) Naturalism is the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world. [3]So OMV can't exist by evolution, ok and therefore this proves that OMV can ONLY exist if God exists ? As I said before this argument is a non sequitur.Pros new argument says.......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.Once again, proving that OMV can't exist by evolution does not prove that OMV can't exist within atheism. For example there are atheists that believe in the supernatural or at least that its possible that the supernatural exists but don't accept that a personal God exists.To claim that within atheism that OMV MUST be grounded in evolution is false, thus the argument is unsound. Pro seems to be having trouble making the distinction between evolution and atheism.SPECIESISMPro mentions murder again, and my point was, its all well and good to say that murder is the "wrongful" killing of someone, but you have to define what that means exactly. This is why your claim that "If OMV exist, murder is objectively wrong." is subjective. Your haven't defined what counts as wrongful killing vs non wrongful killing, so once again how does this help your argument ?Pro says "The point is, on atheism/naturalism, there is no objective way to say X is right or wrong since it is based on societal consensus, which is arbitrary and subjective."Pro now conflates atheism with naturalism, once again these things are not the same thing. Pro then implies that atheism can't adhere to the view that OMV exist. Until it is shown that atheism (not naturalism mind you) is in contradiction with the existence of OMV, the atheist or atheist view can argue that OMV do exist.ABSURDITY OF CONDEMNATIONPro says "This argument is a reason to think that its impossible for OMV to exist without God, since it would be absurd to condemn an act as immoral on atheism; there is just no foundation on which something independent of human belief can be based. "Pro just assume that OMV can't exist unless "God" exists. 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 ?Pro says "OMV exist necessarily, in every possible world and its absurd to think that in the absence of rational agents, some things would still be objectively wrong. "If OMV exist necessarily, then they exist regardless of whether other things exist or not, that's what it means to exist "necessarily".Pro says "Morever, on atheism, societal consensus is the basis for condemnation, and that is NOT objective."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.Divine Command Theory and Maximal Conceivable beingsPro claims that picking one person like Hitler over another person like Mother Teresa as a personal moral standard is absurd, yet they then try to argue that their person of choice "God" is the moral standard. Pro wants it both ways, Pro rejects that a person should be the standard of morality, but wants their person of choice (God) to be the moral standard. Its special pleading for God, and just saying God is essentially good doesn't change that.Pro says "There is nothing circular about saying that goodness is an essential property of God,"Oh but there is, your using God as the moral standard in order to put a moral value on God. As you say God is essentially good. 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. But in the end, does this even matter ? I already agreed that God could be a source of OMV, but in order to affirm the resolution Pro has to show that OMV can ONLY exist if God exist, not that OMV CAN exist if God exists.Closing RemarksPro can argue all day that evolution can't result in OMV, Pro can even wrongly conflate Evolution with Atheism and Naturalism. But at the end of the day has Pro being able to prove that If God does not exist then OMV does not exist ? I don't think so.Vote ConI thank Pro for the debate.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)