Morality is Grounded in God.

1. a. "The first is that "religious differences" in moral oughts are based on factual errors brought up by such religion, For example, Some radical Islamic extremist believes that women do not have souls and thus aren't and so oppression of women is right. " == ok 2 things. First. FACTUAL errors? "women do have a soul" is a fact? How may I VERIFY that statement? I can't. Thus it's hardly a fact at all. Second, People difference in morality is also caused by "factual errors". Like people allowed slavery because they believe slaves were inferior. Why factual errors by religion still validate it as a basis for morality but factual errors by human make them unreliable as a basis for morality? b. "The Second take is that I believe there is a difference between Theism and Religion. Theism is the belief in a Deity of a supernatural entity while Religion is that plus all the institutionalized practices etc that come with Theism such as the Jewish Passover or water baptism in Christianity" === wrong. Hindu would fall in the THEISM category abeit having more than one deity. Plus this distinction is irrelevant. I can reformulate this as "Religions' differences in MORAL OUGHTS are too much for us to assume that morality is based upon RELIGIONS" minor inaccuracies, The gut of the argument still stands 2. " Both are verifiable using the verifiability principle found in logical positivism" == ok, What principles did you used to establish that stealing is wrong? If such principles exist then those principles SHOULD be the basis of morality. Not god. Secondly, "you shouldn't steal" is not verifiable. If it is, May pro list the principles to verify it against. " Both are prescriptive not descriptive" == "F=ma" is prescriptive? It forces reality to behave that way? Nonsense. " You may not believe that stealing is wrong but what is going on with your moral intuition the moment someone else steals from you? You believe Something's wrong. My opponent's objection is based on a misunderstanding of what epitemic realism is. " === this is an argument about the ontology of morality, Not epistemology. I realize it is wrong bc it violates my self-interest. 3. ". Also, My opponent makes the assumption that people don't take into the account of a round earth when doing things like building a house. " == my dad is an engineer and NO, He doesn't take into account the curvature of the earth when building houses. Take a physics class, When you want to calculate the range of a ball thorwn, You take the curvature into account? "desires and beliefs inherently point to the existence of a moral code that we did not make "== again unverifiable nonsense. The distinction between make and discover is blurred. DId we make a computer or did we discovered this particular arrangements of electronics is called a computer? Did beethoven make the 5th symphony? Or did he simply discovered the particular arrangement of notes? 4. "What? My Opponent seems to not understand what am talking about. I have argued that apparent moral differences among cultures is based on factual errors. When we get rid of those factual errors than convergence can happen by the use of rationality so I do not see the "contradiction". " ==== ok, So without factual errors, Moral convergence can happen. If so then why need there be a moral realism for moral to converge? Becaucse P1 said moral realism is needed for moral convergence, Not rationality 5. " B cannot exist unless A existed"== "morality cannot exist unless god exist". Again unverifiable nonsense. "Evil the negation of God/Good as you have metion is manifested in rational agents" == so evil is inside of human? If so then God can't be within you then. Because if god is inside you, He cannot be universal because evil exists within you. If so then he cannot be god since god has to be the greatest possible being in all possible situation.