The Moral Argument for God is Sound

Here is a perfect example of my argument. The belief of Con forces Pro to continuously improve Pros arguments until whatever is fact comes to light. However, for Pro to reach fact does not require the existence of Con, only that the ideas of Con exist. Or, that the force behind ideas like Cons are believed by someone. So again, the existence of God or Gods here is arbitrary, though for the sake of the argument I will say that he exists. Overall it does not matter whether or not he exists, what matters is only the fact that the belief of the existence of a God or Gods forces creatures such as humans, who are interested in the pursuit of truth, to refine whatever belief they hold until it becomes factual. Now, the beliefs of a person are what is used to measure another's morals, as Con pointed out. And if someone is interested in the truth he will refine his own beliefs and in turn his judgement of others until he reaches as close to an objective truth as possible, or an objective morality based on the faulty morals of the observed. Though, I feel that a commenter was correct in saying that this argument may be waste of time if Con prefers an argument requiring an answer to why God lets a baby burn, then I cannot do anything. It is better to question what can be answered quickly, that way you have more time to learn. The argument for the disbelief of someone with respect to a God is unnecessary, as long as there are beliefs, there will be improvement. In other words, because the beliefs of someone require probability, someone will improve that probability to a math that is strong in it's predictions and accuracy. Though, I do believe we are arguing two different topics. I cannot take a survey of the population to determine every persons moral code. I can assume that a moral code is based off some beliefs. I can also assume that those beliefs may or may not require the existence of a God. I can also assume that some beliefs are refined till they approach a natural belief or as close to fact as a belief will ever come. Then, whether or not he "commands it because it is moral" or "is moral therefore he commands it" is unnecessary. When a dog commands his owners to give him food, he may or may not get food. You cannot base a logical proof that seeks accuracy and precision, on probability. One of the issues with relying on ancient philosophers is the tendency to become stuck in that age. As such, when Socrates ask his question it is out of an urge to know what God requires him to do, when moderns ask that question it is out of speculation. An issue with religious philosophy is it's inherent silliness. A person knows what is moral by instinct. A person saves another's life on impulse, not because it is the right thing to do, but because they must. It is the same with killing. Morals are what defines these impulses. It does not matter then whether or not God exists, only that someone believes he does when they are not using their morals and perhaps, are using their intelligence. In other words, morals are not what a person does, they are only what they think they should do, and because a person rarely if ever does what they think they should do, it is a belief. The tone of a proof is not serious nor is it jokingly made. It is an observation of what the author sees and what the logic says, or could say, the author is not so sure anymore. I have no doubt that my writing is poor, this doesn't matter, as long as my point is made then my writing is complete. I'll leave it to the philosophers to make it pretty.