The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

The moral argument for God's existence has been proposed in several different forms. So to keep confusion to an absolute minimum I will define which version of the argument I will be employing here. The specific formulation which I will be using for this debate draws upon the nature of moral facts and concludes that God is the best explanation for their existence. The logical syllogism is as follows.Premise 1: Objective moral facts exist.Premise 2: Moral facts are non-natural.Premise 3: The existence of moral facts of this nature are best explained by the existence of God.Conclusion: God more than likely exists.One of the properties of a sound argument is for it to be valid, that it's conclusion logically flows from it's premises. What P1- 4 show is that moral facts have certain properties and that God is the best explanation. If something exist and there is a more than likely explanation for it's existence(and nature), then there is good reason to believe that whatever the best explanation is is likely true. But validity is not the only requisite necessary for soundness. I must also show that the premises themselves are true and this I assume is what the majority of the debate will focus on.P1: Objective moral facts exist.Sub-P1: There is no categorical difference between moral and sense perception.Sub-P2: Sense perceptions are prima facie justified.Sub-C: Moral perceptions are prima facie justified.Moral facts can be known to be true through moral perception or "intuition". The defense of this relies on an explicitly epistemological argument(it says nothing of the ontological characteristics of moral facts if they exist). The reason we can come to know these facts is the same way in which we come to know things about the outside world(e.g. sense perception). If I touch a stove, my senses tell me that it is hot in the form of a burn on my hand. From this, I know that the stove is hot. My sense perceptions have allowed me to perceive a fact about the stove. There is no reason why moral and sense perception are non-analogous and if there is my opponent ought to show it to disprove my premise. If sense perceptions can be prima facie reliable, the same can be said of moral perceptions.P2: Moral facts are non-natural.This can be shown with an argument from the contrary, meaning by showing that the opposite(and necessary conclusion if P2 is false) is wrong. This conclusion would be moral naturalism. The most cogent argument against moral naturalism is the naturalistic fallacy proposed by G.E. Moore. The basic formulation states that arriving at an evaluative conclusion(that something X is good or moral) from a factual premise(that something X possesses property Y) is fallacious in that an evaluative conclusion requires at least one evaluative premise. To say that gingers are good because gingers have red hair is fallacious because one arrives at an evaluative conclusion through a factual)descriptive)premise.Premise 3: The existence of moral facts of this nature are best explained by the existence of God.From the non-naturalness and objectivity of moral facts, one can most reasonably assume that they are the product of an entity possessing the qualities of omnipotence(necessitating omni-authoritativeness) and omni-benevolence. OmnipotencePossessing omnipotence is the first quality of a God that I will undertake to prove. For any objectively prescriptive statement to be truly binding, it must come from a truly authoritative source. Obviously if a toddler tells you to give him your wallet you are not obliged to since the toddler has no authority over you. God, in the scope of this debate, is definitionally the highest authority since it is all powerful and thus prescriptions that it makes are the most binding.Omni-benevolenceBesides omnipotence though, it can be shown that God is omni-benevolent or all perfect. God's perfection would originate in it's ontological qualities or it's nature. This means that by it's qualities, actions prescribed by this God would have the nature of being morally correct. Without the existence of an omni-benevolent being, there is no standard for which to base moral claims. Conclusion: God more than likely exists.As I have shown, objective moral facts exist and possess a certain nature(non-naturalism) and that these two facts are best explained by the existence of an omni-potent and omni-benevolent being i.e. God since the facts of their nature can be explained by an all-good and all-powerful(authoritative) entity.