The moral argument for God is sound.

Abbreviations:GM - God moralityP - PremiseC - ConclusionR2/3/4/5 - Round 2/3/4/5/In my opening arguments (R2) I set out to show the moral argument for God was sound by negating the opposite. Con set up a syllogism that I played along with: P1. No God; no objective morality.I listed three reasons to show the reasonableness of God's existence (two in detail) and what would be the case if God did not exist (left with subjectivity/relativism). P2. Objective morality exists.I contrasted subjective morality with objective morality in making sense of morality. A fixed 'best' reference point is needed that evolution does not provide.I laid down the foundation for rational discourse - the Laws of Logic and why subjectivism does not meet them.C) Therefore, God and objective morality is a sound belief.Con's Irrationality and Logical InconsistencyIn my outline, I documented 12 self-refuting or inconsistent statements Con made. I will list three due to space requirements:1) CON (R2): "Suppose that the statement S is both true and false." A statement that is both true and false at the same time/same sense is a self-refuting statement. 'S' cannot equal non-S (Identity issues). 2) CON (R3): "...whether claims are true or false depends on what people decide." Then I choose not to believe Con's statement, therefore (according to Con's logic/standard) my belief is true! I win! CON (R3): "mathematical claim depends for its truth on opinion and is therefore subjective." My opinion is 2+2=5 is true because it is my opinion. How inconsistent is Con's thinking here, to make mathematical truths a matter of opinion? CON: "Language is a set of agreements used to facilitate communication. That has the uncanny consequence, one my opponent refuses to accept, that whether claims are true or false depends on what people decide." It does not depend on what people choose to accept but on whether what they believe is so (see my response in R3). 3) CON (R4): "If an alien civilization that used a different mathematical syntax and vocabulary wrote : “2-2=4”Would they be wrong? Would someone be able to prove they are wrong ?" Yes! 2-2 does not equal 4; it equals 0. Con's reasoning is flawed. He continues: "Hence, alien mathematics may look completely different, even if it is conceptually the same as ours." The example is not conceptually the same. 2-2=0; not 4.A Humdinger of Confusion on Standards CON: "[M]orality is a standard that applies to behaviour and agents." Later (see below), Con argues that the only standard that is true is 'the standard of truth.' What is the standard of truth? His subjective behavioral argument (Con chose above) is self-refuting because it undermines this 'standard of truth.' In a forum debate question, I challenged Con's standard, his highest authority about goodness. I asked for HIS supreme authority in determining this, not mine. He asked what mine was, I told him, then he makes it all about mine. It steers the topic away from him answering my question regarding his subjective standard of authority (CON: "I have also not adopted a moral philosophy that I read about and then liked, but developed my own."). Then Con makes confusing statements like this, "my opponent thrives on the confusion about the ambiguity of the used moral standards." Why would I want to believe Con's subjective viewpoint when he holds to a standard (his own) that he has not shown is true? CON: "Conclusions:With morality, we mean moral standard.Moral claims are ambiguous in absence of reference standard." AGAIN, Con has no basis for a true standard of morality as his statement in R4 demonstrates: "That illustrates something else pro fails to understand, namely that truth does not apply to standards (with possible exceptions, like the standard of truth). Pick any standard and try proving it true or false. You can't. Truth only applies to statements." Why SHOULD anyone believe that any standard Con uses is true??? Con R2 confuses objective with subjective. The passing of legislature does not make a standard objective; it just makes it the standard used. Something objective is true. Con lacks such a standard, except the 'standard of truth.' CON: "Since there is more than one mutually exclusive standard that one could use, that necessarily implies choosing one. That would make all morality subjective." Con confuses what is right with what is preferred. Preferring something does not make it right. Who in their right mind would say that raping children for fun is right? Evolution of the Gaps Con's 'address' of the God-of-the-gaps show just what I claimed, an evolution-of-the-gaps. He says: "Therefore, given a mystery, history teaches us that if it will ever be solved, the explanation will most likely be a natural one, not a divine one." (i.e., Evolution-of-the-gaps)Alice and BobCON: "If two people are opposing each other about what is right, they are probably referring to different moral standards. Alice: “Jumping is right, while crouching is wrong.”Bob: “Crouching is right, while jumping is wrong.”Both may be correct, as long as they use different meaning for right and wrong, i.e. refer to different moral standards.Jumping or crouching is not a prescriptive moral issue. It is a descriptive preference, like, taste.CON (R4): "Suppose Alice in England says: “It is right to drive on the left side of the road.”At the same time Bob in the USA says: “It is wrong to drive on the left side of the road.”They are 'clearly' contradicting each other. So who of them is right ?”No, the cultural preference in England is different from the USA, but the result of breaking the law (morality) is the same. CON (R5): "I already explained how that is possible in round 2. Alice approves, while Bob disapproves. They are both right according to their own moral standard." Con's statements are not rationally defensible. For one thing, Con confuses moral right with subjective preference. He also conflates the Law of Identity and Noncontradiction, as I already explained. Try these on for size:Alice - A dog is a cat!Bob - A dog is a dog!Are they both right?Alice - I like ice-cream! Therefore ice-cream is good!Bob - I don't like ice-cream! Therefore ice-cream is evil! Alice - Your 'good' is bad/wrong!Bob - My 'good' is good/right!According to Con, they are both right. Alice - It is good to murder for fun.Bob - It is wrong to murder for fun. According to Con, there is no contradiction because what a person believes depends on his subjective preference. Alice - "Don't like rape, don't do it!" Alice - "I like to murder for fun; it is good, but you do not have to hold to my standards. Bob - "Don't rape because it is evil."Bob - "Murder is evil, regardless of how Alice perceives it."This is the consequences of faulty thinking. Any standard can be passed as 'right.'Cons Code of Conduct - Ad hominem and Poisoning the Well Con continually makes statements that imply my argument is deficient to sway the vote: 1) CON (R4): "Pro will not allow his ignorance, the foundation of his God-belief, to be weakened." 2) CON: "This subtopic illustrates typical behavior of pro. He blows smoke, sows doubt around the topic and criticizes his opponent's worldview, hoping to create enough confusion to give the impression I am wrong and that maybe God is the solution." This tactic is precisely what Con is doing here - blowing smoke, sowing doubt and criticizing my view to give the impression he is right. My ambition was to show that the moral argument for God is sound. That means undermining the ability of a subjective/relative position to make sense of morality adequately. 3) CON (R5): "We should not let people like pro get in the way of acquiring such knowledge." Pro poisons the well. "People like me"? Is Con insinuating that I am as dumb as a church mouse, that I get in the way of knowledge because I do not approach life the same way he does? Summary: Why the Moral Argument for God is Sound1. The moral argument is logically sound. There is an objective, unchanging, universal, personal source of morality. In opposition, Con's argument lacks objectivity raising the valid point of who is right and how two opposing value systems can both be right regarding the same issue. Rationality goes out the window. 2. There can be a certainty because the basis for morality has a fixed, unchanging source if this necessary being exists. In opposition, evolution is constantly changing, and there is no reason behind it. 'Reason' is injected into it by people. The very fact that we can find reason in the natural realm suggests reason behind the natural realm. 3. Moral values cannot be seen. In opposition, how does an evolutionary process arrive at the immaterial, intangible? Con never explained how this was possible. 4. Moral values affect every area of human life. The Bible has an answer for this - people are made in the image and likeness of God. We reflect His values to a lesser degree. I asked Con to explain how evolutionary naturalism is capable of values. It is indifferent to morality or survival because evolution does not reason or care. 5. God is an answer for how moral values are possible. Con did not give me a reason how values are derived from a piece of granite or mindless matter because values require consciousness. We witness mindful beings producing other mindful beings, so it is SOUND to believe an eternal mindful, moral Being is the necessary being. I have nothing to dispute in respect to an evolutionary worldview. No answer was forthcoming (evolution-of-the-gaps).6. My belief is consistent with objective morality. I know raping children for fun is wrong. Con's belief is inconsistent. Con sees that raping children for fun is close to a universal standard (wrong), yet he sees it as possible that someone could develop a moral system where such a belief was not held. Therefore, Con reasons that it is not universally wrong to rape children for fun, just that he is certain it is wrong for him. Please judge grammar and spelling.