Morality is given by the biblical God

Thank you CON, for putting on this debate. I hope all the best to the both of us, and to a fruitful conversation. Main Argument:My opening argument can be summarized in the following syllogism:P1: Objective moral values exist.P2: In a world without God, objective moral values do not exist.C: Therefore, God exists.And then lastly, I will argue that it is the Christian God that provides a sound foundation for objective morality. P1: Objective Moral Values ExistsObjective means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” Subjective, on the other hand, means “just a matter of personal opinion.” If we do have objective moral values, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are either obligated or forbidden to do some particular actions, regardless of what we think. So the question is, are those moral values objective or subjective? I will give several reason as to why we should believe moral values are objective rather than subjective.1. We all have an intuitive perception of objective moral values.Intuitively, we all know that objective moral values exist. Many proponents of a subjective morality might say that is not true, but the second you do something immoral against them, they don't brush it off and say "I suppose for him, that was morally right", instead they will want to affirm that they have been truly wronged. Actions such as rape, torture, or child abuse aren't merely social conventions or preferences that help to make a better society, they really are objectively wrong. They are moral abominations. While on the other hand, things like love, equality, and self-sacrifice we affirm to be morally good. Not merely because they are socially acceptable, but because they really are good whether anyone thinks them to be good or not. We affirm this intuitive belief every day when people fight for human rights concerning gender or racial equality. 2. If we can affirm one moral action that is objectively wrong, then objective moral values exist.In order to show that objective moral values exist, all I have to do is show at least one thing that is objectively wrong. Here I will quote Michael Ruse, an atheistic philosopher of science, who says "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5." [1] Raping a little child is wrong independently to what anyone thinks, and I eagerly invite you to argue against such a notion. If however, you concede that raping a child is wrong whether anyone thinks it to be so or not, you are conceding that objective moral values do exist. 3. Ontology vs EpistemologyOften, proponents of a subjective morality will defend their position by stating that moraltiy is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands or feet. On this view, any moral value is essentially illusory - nothing more than a byproduct of evolution. The problem is, this view fails to recognize the difference between Ontology - the nature of something, with Epistemology - how we come to know something. It seems rather obvious that we could have come to know or become aware of moral values through evolutionary processes, while its nature still being objective. Just because we come to know something through evolution, doesn't mean we should ignore the arguments and intuitive perceptions we have in favor of objective morality. That would be what many call, the genetic fallacy - to conclude something based on the source in which it came from. William Lane Craig, a philosopher at Talbot School of Theology, gives us great insight on this topic when he says "...if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then such a gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm." [2] Craig's point is, the way in which we come to know something doesn't dictate the nature of it. To confuse ontology and epistemology is therefore a grave mistake.P2: In a world without God, objective moral values do not exist.I will try not to spend too much time on this premise, in that it is my assumption that you will actually concede this point. In a world absent of God, in which morality has emerged among us through evolutionary processes, would be a world in which those moral values are merely social conventions - preferences and nothing more. As Christopher Hitchens himself admits, moral values are just "innate predispositions" ingrained into us by evolution. [3] On this view, an action like rape is not necessarily wrong, its simply not socially advantageous, and therefore has become morally taboo. But this does nothing to prove that rape is morally wrong in any objective sense. On an atheistic view, one where God does not exist, nothing is truly morally wrong with raping someone. Moral values, on this view, do not exist in any further capacity than our preferences concerning foods we like to eat - they are entirely subjective without God. C: Therefore, God exists.In order to deny this conclusion, you must show why one or both of my two premises are not more plausibly true than false. If you can't, this conclusion logically follows from those premises. Lastly, I shall now defend the position that the Christian God is a sound foundation for these objective moral values in which I affirm. On the Christian view, objective moral values are rooted in God's nature. God's nature, therefore, is the absolute standard by which all moral actions are measured. On the Christian view, God is by his very nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so on. Furhermore, we can know God's nature by his moral commands. In the Christian Bible, the entirety of man's moral duty can be summed up in two commandments: (1) You shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind and (2) You shall love your neighbor as yourself. With these two commands in mind, we can induce that things like generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality are objectively good, while things like selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and opression would go against these two core commandments and therefore are objectively wrong and should be condemned. [2]Therefore, it is my contention that objective moral values do exist, and that the Christian God of the Bible is a sound foundation for those objective moral values. SOURCES:(1) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...(2) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...(3) Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, Is Christianity Good for the World? (Moscow, ID: Cannon Press, 2008), 52.