Without God there is no reason of morality

Hold on, you have brought up so many side topics its not even funny. Remember you're trying to defend that morals can logically exist without God. Meanwhile you're attacking other subjects of Christianity, which I do not have a problem with but maybe that should be a different debate. I am not trying to directly prove God's existence. If morals cannot exist without God, and morals exist, then obviously that is some convincing evidence. But again, let's stay on track. On II: You are missing the point. Christianity is based on scientific evidence as well as revelation. "Religion was born of our inability to scientifically explain these things." I completely disagree with this statement. You have no way to prove this and my faith is not based on such an idea. I believe science confirms God and the Bible. Do not use religion in this debate because both Christianity and Atheism are, in the end, based on assumptions and can never be entirely proved or disproved, which makes them equally valid. In addition, both are quite scientific, I assure you. I'm not going to mess with your ideas of evolution, I will instead use them to confirm my point. On III: In this section you use everything based on your own worldview and disregard my ideas on genetics, science, evolution etc. I believe evolution is completely faulty so what do your arguments mean to me? But we cannot prove evolution in this debate because that is off topic. I never said God instilled the same moral code in animals, but I believe animals were changed during "The Fall." Again, this is irrelevant to the debate. I will try to prove that a universal code of morals thing a bit later. Still, is this necessary to prove the original argument? You then say I fail to explain the rationality behind The Fall. I do not have time for this and it is not relative to the debate. I already answered the question of why we debate moral issues and the whole Ten Commandments deal. It is because when you sin, your conscience begins to lose its sense of right and wrong. The more you steal, the less guilt you feel. It all goes back to The Fall, which is irrelevant to the main issue. a2. Now, I could have done al little better in my logical argument. I will improve it now. Chance equates to nothing. If you say I won by chance, you are saying you won by nothing. If you say the world exists by chance, you are saying it exists by nothing (nothing caused it). And chance is random, very random. a3. Evolution is based on chance. What are the chances that life would form by electricity in a specific mixture of chemicals that just happened to come together by chance and survive to reproduce?* That is pretty amazing for such a random universe. (Oh wait, the universe is not very random... Strange.) Again, everything you say about humans is based on evolution which is based on what? Chance. Nothing. Pretty random. a4. Thing interesting thing is that the brain is far from random. I wonder how chance has the ability to create such a complex structure. How can this be "meaningful" anyway if the brain is based on evolution? a5. I'm not saying ideas are random; I'm saying they should if the world is based on chance alone. a6. Morality is not random; but in a world based on chance, it should be quite random. Then you give your ideas on what morality is. It cannot be our instincts because instinct is based on the chances of evolution. You might say that evolution is based on the environment, but the environment too is based on chance. Then you say ethics are constantly evolving, changing. Why can a person finally change morality and go on a mass murdering spree? Well, it turns out, someone did that. It was called the virginia tech shooting. A very atheistic kid realized there were no basis for morals, existence, rationalism, and purpose in his life and thus starting shooting people before killing himself. I'm not saying any atheist reading this would ever do such a thing, and I do not want to offend my opponent. But this kid realized the lack of basis of all these subjects in his radically atheistic worldview. Really, he was a true atheist. Why don't I just make an extremely simple argument: If the universe is based on chance (which means nothing, nothing caused it), and morals are based on the universe, then morals are based on chance, which is really, nothing. A last argument showing that there must be either a universal code of right and wrong OR no code at all: If morality is relative, a person can decide what is right for himself. If he believes stealing is right, then he is one of many standards of morality, thus stealing is moral in this specific case. If so, every case could be moral if one conforms to the right conduct of his own ideas. This makes the standard of right and wrong relative to each individual. This means there is no single standard. This means that an idea can be true and not true at the same time, which breaks the rules of logic. Therefore morality cannot be relative. Some say you cannot use logic on relativism, but that would give no case for the position of moral relativism. I think I improved my arguments as I went on. Anyway, thank you for the debate. I hope readers were convinced by my arguments.