The moral argument for God is sound.

PGA : “If there is nothing objectively true morally, then subjectivism is left by default. I only have to refute subjectivism/relativism. What is left is objective morality or no morality.”What pro fails to realize is that they all exist side by side (if one is not too strict for objectivity, as I explained in post 2). No god is required.Pro also fails to realize that objectivity comes in degrees and ways, as I explained with the circle example. It is both objective and subjective.Next pro continues to criticize relativism. Supporting the moral argument seems to be the farthest thing from his mind.PGA : 'Cross-examination of Con's 3rd Round “I do not understand what Con is getting at with his (AM) and (GM) statements. Con keeps interjecting God morality (GM) into my statements. Doing so misrepresents my meaning.[*] Although I hold to (GM), I question a subjective moral position. I ask, how two subjective beings holding opposite views on the same issue can both be right? Logically they can't.[**]”[*]So pro tells us that he was not using God's moral standard (contrary to what he claimed in the thread). What standard he was using, he keeps refusing to share.[**] I already explained how that is possible in round 2. Alice approves, while Bob disapproves. They are both right according to their own moral standard.***Pro demands alternatives to support the accusation of a false dilemma fallacy regarding natural forces or God.Other options are obvious. It is up to pro to refute them as unviable. There could be a gazillion deities other than God that through their nature could somehow create morality. After all, pro still hasn't demonstrated that God has the attributes he claims are required to be the source of morality. Moreover, humans could also create morality that way. In addition, morality could be based on well-being and intention, which hardly qualify as forces.*** Next pro claims that God is more reasonable than evolution-of-the-gaps. He does not counter my criticism of the god-of-the-gaps argument, which therefore stands.***Next pro uses a defunct argument to argue that God must have created consciousness. He also boldly assert that he can make sense of the rise of the consciousness with God. Let him prove it. I doubt he will get father than God doing it with his magical powers.***Next pro criticizes a part of reality : evolution. PGA : “Con wants to make it depend on "the person, the circumstances and the reference standard of quality."[*]That does not answer the question.[**] How does a person ever get to a best to compare values without an objective best?Con just materializes a social convention and calls it best or good.[***]”[*] Pro is mistaken, for I don't want that. I was describing reality, not my desires.[**] It is not my duty to answer pro's questions to his satisfaction, especially given my space and time constraints. If he were interested in specific answers, he would have asked specific questions that can be answered shortly, for example by giving the requested information.[***] Con has not done that, but even if he had and on top of that con were to lie, steal, rape and murder, that still would not support the moral argument.PGA : “Why is it best?Answer: Because Con decides to call it so!”I challenge pro to prove that.PGA :"Good" for Con relates to his opinion or the views of a social convention he supports. Why is what he believes good? He won't say." Pro committed a loaded question fallacy : he has yet to prove that what I believe is good.Next pro continues with showing different legislations in different countries regarding abortion. If I understand correctly, that would not be possible if God existed. He also invents desires and behaviours for me and criticizes them.PGA : “So, logically all social conventions can't be equally valued as "right" since contradictions are evident. Con is suggesting a value can have two opposing identities and still be valid in the same meaning.”Pro is mistaken, as I am suggesting no such thing. Again, pro should focus on the moral argument and my claims in stead of what he would like me to suggest.***PGA : “Con askes what is best?Answer: It is the ideal or perfect form of the value or object.”The problem is of course that perfection and idealism are subjective. They are defined by standards, which are chosen. Pro gives a non-representative example : a circle. For that case everyone in the know agrees what perfection is. However, what about the perfect island, economy, girlfriend or submarine ? No one one here will agree on what qualifies as perfection and it probably even depends on circumstances. Those examples are more representative for our case : morality. What does the perfect morality say about abortions ? Opinions are all over the place, as pro has illustrated.Hence, what is best usually depends on opinion, while pro's argumentation in round 2 depended on there being an objective best.***Concerning rape:Pro asks me how I can be certain I disapprove of the obnoxious behaviours he listed. I accumulated enough life experience to remember I experienced disapproval when confronted with them (be it via account). What relevance that has, I don't know.PGA : “Con believes it is only wrong for some; some condone rape. (Lock up your kids) Con does not believe it is morally evil for every moral standard to allow abusing children for fun. Who would like to live under such rules as rape for fun is permissible?”I remind the reader that this debate is not about who has the worst moral standard. I disagree with pro's characterization of my morality, but this is not the place to argue about it. I have already argued about it in the thread 'Objective morality argument'.Notice how pro is trying to trick people : he is clearly trying to raise disapproval for me and my position for believing that there are moral standards that condone rape for fun. Yet according to the definition I provided about existence and moral standards, people actually use that standard (assuming children are being raped for fun). Hence, I merely believe in an unfortunate aspect of reality, but pro phrases it such to make me look bad.The Catholic church also has a denial approach regarding sexual abuse of children by clerics. Pretending no priests with such moral standard exist merely aids in hiding the problem. The first step to solving a problem is recognizing it.PGA : “His view of certainty is put into question by stating his opinion. How does his opinion equate to certainty?[*] Does anyone else see the contradiction? He says he is certain; then he says it is only his opinion.[**]”[*] Pro committed another loaded question fallacy. He has yet to prove that my opinion equates certainty.[**] I ask reader not to rely on pro to learn about my beliefs and claims. There are big differences between the claims and beliefs he attributes to me and the ones I actually make, respectively hold. In this case for example, my certainty and opinion were on/about two different subjects : the former was about my own moral standard, the latter about used moral standards in general.***PGA : “Con asks how God could "create" an objective moral standard?The standard comes from His being, from who He is. Thus, not created. He doesn't 'choose' it as an option. It is His nature to do what is right and best.”How does that standard come from his being without being created ? What form does it have ? How does it become adopted (i.e. used, required for its existence) by people without them choosing it ? Does God mind-control people to adopt his morality ? What evidence does pro have for that ? Why didn't everyone adopt it ?If God were to remove his moral influence from the world, would we notice ? Would raping children for fun not be wrong anymore ?***Next pro shows that he still hasn't understood that truth does not apply to standards, assuming that is what he means with 'correct'.PGA : “His example about driving in England and America confuses two different physical conditions with a moral condition.“Pro failed to understand I had used an analogy.***I don't understand how I am supposed to have misrepresented the argument pro relied on other than this important difference : In my ABC-example, the existence of C was assumed. Pro uses a variation that tries to support the existence of C. After eliminating everyone else pro concludes that X must be supported by the one he conveniently did not eliminate : C.About pro's complaints :[1] He never demonstrated God is necessary (nor objective).[2] Of course it existed before A and B, since mindful beings existed before A and B.[5] Indeed, that is the non-sequitur.***I intended to finish with all pro had done in stead of supporting the moral argument, but I prefer to explain some more.Planet Pluto was discovered in 1930. Pluto was a planet because people (more specifically the astronomic community) decided it was a planet. From 1992 on more and more other bodies similar to Pluto were found and it was inconvenient to all call them planets, so in 1992 the astronomic community voted to demote Pluto to dwarf planet, see news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060824-pluto-planet.html.Now we have a problem : if Alice says that Pluto is planet and Bob says it is not, who is right ?Planet-subjectivism clearly does't make sense, so you can redo the whole of pro's argumentation, but this time for planet-objectivism and conclude that you need God for that.One more thing :Usually the god-of-the-gaps argument is used to answer scientific questions, but in case of the moral argument, the problems are linguistic : people do not undestand what the words mean. Some even refuse to accept that people decide their meaning. Once we have established the necessary conventions, we can ask scientific questions and search for real answers. We should not let people like pro get in the way of acquiring such knowledge.May the truth prevail.