If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

BOP & Logical PossibilitiesPro says "He cannot merely assert that absent any evidence for the impossibility of OMV without God, we should assume that it is possible."I am not making an "actual" statement, I am making a "possibility" statement. So what does it mean to say that something is logically possible ? ..."A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true" [1]There is no explicit contradiction in the concept of OMV existing and God not existing. Compare this to say the concept of a duck having no feathers and a duck always has feathers". In the duck statement there is an explicit contradiction, thus the "possibility" of this concept is shown false.Seeing that there is no explicit contradiction in the concept of 1) God not existing & OMV existing, if Pro thinks there is a contradiction here then they must have some other premises that bring out this implicit contradiction. Until this is shown, OMV can exist even if God does not exist.CA: EvolutionPro says "Without God, there is no reason to think moral values are objective since they may have been otherwise." What is Pros argument here exactly ?1) OMV can't exist by evolution2) Therefore OMV can't exist unless God existsConsider this example.....1) Cars can't exist by ants2) Therefore cars can't exist unless God existsIn both arguments, you can agree to the first premise, but the conclusion doesn't follow. Its a non sequitur.CA: SpeciesismPro says "This is not an argument! If OMV exist, the statement "murder is wrong" is true independent of any claims by us or other species."I don't think this helps Pros argument, cause what is murder and what isn't is a grey area. It used to be thou shalt not kill, but that was an untenable OMV in light of commandments to go and kill other people. Pro I think would have to better define what is and isn't murder, otherwise we have this vague moral value, and because its vague its open to interpretation, and cause its open to interpretation its open to being subjective. This undermines Pros argument about murder being objectively wrong.CA: Absurdity of CondemnationPro says "My opponent uses flawed logic here. See the evidence in the BOP section. Just because it has not been proven that God is the only way that OMV can exist, it does not follow that therefore OMV DO exist or CAN exist. "Allow me to be crystal clear here, I am NOT saying that because it has not be proven that God is the only way that OMV can exist that proves that OMV DO exist, I repeat I am NOT claiming that.What I am claiming is that their is no explicit contradiction in the concept of God not existing and OMV existing. Because of this I am claiming that's its POSSIBLE for OMV to exist, even if God does not exist.As I said before, even with the existence of OMV not proven, the atheist is not caught in a contradiction until it is proved that OMV can only exist if God exists. The atheists that believes in OMV may be open to attack on the grounds that their OMV is an unproven assumption, but never the less until it is shown that OMV can't exist unless God exists the atheist is not caught in a logical contradiction between their lack of belief in the existence of God/s and their belief in the existence of OMV.Divine Command Theory and Maximal Conceivable beingsPro quotes Craig as saying "As Craig puts it: "God is the greatest conceivable being, and it is greater to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to it."1) Just because you can think of it doesn't mean it exists (that's why its called conceivable being)2) Whether it is greater to be the paradigm of goodness or conform to it is debatable.3) Its problematic for a person to be the absolute standard of moralityAllow me to expand on this point as Pro says "God's nature is essentially good, and therefore, His commands are not arbitrary, but grounded in His nature. On such a view, God would, by definition, be the paradigm of moral values and the means through which these values are expressed emanate from His divine commands. Since "the good" is grounded as an essential property of God, with God, we have a basis for the existence of OMV. "These statements about God amount to God is good cause God is the paradigm of what is good, and God acts as God does thus what God does is good. Sounds pretty circular to me. I am pretty sure no one would accept such reasoning as Hitler as good on this basis......Hitler is the paradigm of goodness, Hitler's commands are based on Hitler's nature. Since the "good" is grounded as an essential property of Hitler we have a basis for the existence of OMV.Why should we pick one person known as "God" as the moral paradigm of goodness over another person like Hitler or Mother Teresa ?Pro says "I have therefore provided a grounding for believing that OMV can exist with God." Well Pro will be pleased that I agree with this point. Does this mean the debate is over ? At best Pro has shown that God can be a source of OMV. But in order to affirm the resolution this isn't enough, Pro has to show that not only can God be a source of OMV, but that God is the ONLY WAY omv can exist.Until this is proven, the resolution is not affirmed.I look forward to Pros reply.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...