The moral argument is sound

Moral Epistemology, Moral Ontology, Begging The Question And Red HerringsPro re-asserts God necessary to know with certainty that a view is true in regards to morality. However, is Pro absolutely certain about this argument? If so, then by his own standards, he would have to presuppose God exists. Thus, his argument is inherently circular. Also, he claims this is the heart of the issue when the exact opposite is true. Morality's relationship with human knowledge deals with moral epistemology, what grounds morality deals with moral ontology. Pro has spent the entire debate confusing the two. Any Revelation pertaining to The Bible could just be written by men without being directly inspired by God. If Pro wants to appeal to The Bible, he has to show that God actually inspired The Bible, and that everything in The Bible is true. This has not been accomplished. Pro claims that if God is not necessary to know something with absolute certainty, then I must provide an alternative. It seems Pro just cannot let go of the shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Regardless, humans don't have to know anything with absolute certainty; this says nothing on whether objective morality can exist without God or not. Thus, this whole "certainty" argument is a red herring to begin with. My opponent also argues that I am bare asserting that morality can be grounded in the nature of existence. Lets say he is correct, and it is a bare assertion; it does not matter. Thus, his bare-assertion claim is a red herring. Pro has to show that morality cannot be grounded in the nature of existence itself. Remember the burden of proof. A shared burden of proof only holds when specified in the rules. It is just assumed that whoever starts the debate has to establish the conclusion as true. All I have to do is undermine the Moral Argument. Asking me to falsify it would be unfair, as this is the Theist's argument; they have to prove it true. Limited Knowledge (Begging The Question And Red Herrings Continued)Pro says:"Whether Con likes it or not his knowledge is limited. It is a true statement." - ProWell, whether Pro likes it or not his knowledge is limited. This is a true statement. Pro is committing the special pleading fallacy, and delving into the world of double-standards. Once more, Pro commits the fallacy of begging the question, and the red herring fallacy. He begs the question because he is arguing that God is necessary for absolute certainty regarding morality, but in order for Pro to prove this with certainty, he would have to presuppose God exists (according to his own argument). The argument is a red herring, as I said before, because morality's relationship to human knowledge deals with moral epistemology, not moral ontology. What grounds morality deals with moral ontology. Thus, his argument in this regard, even if successful (which it is not), has no bearing on the resolution. Even if knowledge dealing with morality cannot be 100% certain, that says nothing on whether morality can exist without God. Brute-FactsAs far as brute-facts are concerned, Pro has not proven that brute facts cannot be known. He just presumes this. We know brute facts cannot be explained, or grounded in anything, but its not clear that brute facts cannot even be known. Pro then says there will always be doubt in my worldview. However, the same is true for his worldview. If he wants to argue that God can make things absolutely true, then he has to presuppose God to be absolutely sure about this. This makes his worldview incoherent, as it is based on circular reasoning. Additionally, once more, what does knowing anything with certainty have to do with this debate? Nothing. Even if I cannot know anything with certainty, that does not mean morality cannot exist without God. That is a non-sequitur. Every one of Pro's arguments are based on logical fallacies. They can all be dismissed.Bahnsen And The Fallacy Of PresumptionHe also claims that Bahnsen is laying out the position on what is necessary for something to be correct. But laying out a position, doesn't mean that the position is true. Pro has to show that Bahnsen is correct; not just presume his position. Pro commits the fallacy of presumption here. Pro still has not shown how moral facts cannot be brute facts. Thus, this objection alone shows that Pro has not even come close to meeting his burden of proof.The Euthyphro DilemmaAs far as the Euthyphro Dilemma is concerned, he completely ignores my main argument once again! He keeps rebutting the version of the dilemma which deals with God's commands. I already rebutted his rebuttal in my first round by shifting the dilemma to deal with God's nature. Douglas Croothuis doesn't deal with the latter version of the dilemma I mentioned in my first round. Thus, the Euthyphro Dilemma stands. Morality cannot be grounded in God; the resolution has been negated. Mentioning The Bible is useless as well, as I am discussing moral ontology; The Bible deals with moral epistemology. Relativism And LogicPro completely dodged this subset of issues in his last round. Thus, my arguments from the last round stand; Moral Relativism does not violate the laws of logic. This alone negates the notion that Pro has established the resolution. Any additional arguments from me should be considered nothing less than generous. Conduct ViolationPGA tried to pull an Aperion and cheat the character limit, but he tried to do this by presenting the rest his arguments in the comment section. I am not going to read it, and it has no bearing on the debate (as members of this site are already aware of). If Pro wants to use his arguments in the comment section in his last round, then he is free to do so. The character limits in the debate are more than fair, and trying to cheat like this unethical to the extreme. I urge full conduct deductions due to this act of cheating. It is a well known rule that trying to get passed the character limits is not permitted.Conclusion All of Pro's arguments are based on elementary logical fallacies. Thus, the resolution has not been established. Also, Pro violated conduct by trying to cheat the character limit.