Objective Moral Values and Duties must be grounded in God

My opponent says that "no one person" can decide how to reason, and that "[r]eason is merely a way to derive further conclusions from reality: it consists of a grouping of truths". Key to this is the notion that "everything is already there". Here I think it is important to point out that my opponent assumes that the "bedrock of all truths" is established. In other words, if one already agrees about the criteria necessary for entrance to the "club of Man," then the further truths naturally follow. But surely, this is begging the question. For if one disagrees about the fundamental truths underlying reality, one will not be led to the same corollary truths (i.e., moral outcomes). My opponent says that "I definitely do not believe that the Nazi's [sic] are reasonable in any way. What may seem reasonable at first glance could very well be unreasonable." Glad to hear it. But to pretend that the Nazis were not logical, were not based in sound philosophy, is silly. A cursory perusal of google reveals: "In the case of other major historical revolutions, we are more familiar with seeing the significance of philosophy. When we think for example of the causes of the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, we naturally think back to the philosopher Karl Marx. When we think of the causes of the French Revolution, we think back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. When we think of the causes of the American Revolution, we naturally think back to the philosopher John Locke. The same holds the causes of National Socialism"although since the Nazi regime went so horribly wrong, there is perhaps some reluctance to name names. Yet naming names is sometimes crucial if we are going to get to the historical heart of the matter. What philosophers can we cite in the case of the Nazis? Several names are candidates: Georg Hegel, Johann Fichte, even elements from Karl Marx. "But in connection with the Nazis, perhaps the biggest and the most controversial name regularly mentioned is that of Friedrich Nietzsche. The Nazis often cited Nietzsche as one of their philosophical precursors, and even though Nietzsche died thirty-three years before the Nazis came to power, references to Nietzsche crop up regularly in Nazi writings and activities. In philosopher Heidegger"s lectures, for example, "Nietzsche was presented as the Nazi philosopher." [http://www.stephenhicks.org... Clearly, the Nazis were not mere lunatics. My opponent next says "Ah, but is there not a hidden circumstance in that example? Does it not rely on reality being what it is? If reality was different, could the "ought" not change?" Well, yes, it could, but this point is trivial and I don"t see how it affects anything. If there is no God, this rule does not apply. This is why I said, in introducing this unconditional ought, "A Christian might say". I introduced this example solely as a way to illustrate the difference between a conditional and an unconditional ought. My opponent next says "Reality can "judge" (with "judge" referring to applying moral status to an action) because it sets the boundaries. Only one reality exists, with nothing being able to go against the rules of that reality. It allows us to reason, as reason is just the method by which reality can be understood. When one reasons, one only "uncovers" truths. These truths were true without being found. Thus, they are not subject to human manipulation (much in the same way that a vision of a mirage in a desert does not change the actual desert), and are objectively correct." Note that this proposition, even if granted, does not get you to judgement. This definition of morality may be able to get you an "is," but it does not and cannot get you an unconditional "ought", or moral judgement. Especially important is the assertion that "When one reasons, one only "uncovers" truths." Surely this is not the case. In a disagreement, two sides take opposing views on the truth-value of a proposition, but they have both reasoned their way to the conclusion. My opponent is shouldering an unsustainable burden of proof by asserting that reason leads, must lead, and can only lead, to truth. As the above illustration of the Nazis should clearly illustrate, reason can lead to contradictory truth claims. Notable is that my opponent did not address the case of the sociopath. Punishment, or, more properly termed, judgement, is necessary to morality because it provides the normative "oomph" behind moral imperatives. Disagreement about moral values and duties, as has been illustrated, is all-too-common. Without some overarching power capable of judging and punishing immoral actions, people would simply act as their individual or societal moralities - which often disagree - dictate. At this point, the debate is almost entirely focused on the question of whether objective morality is possible without God. My opponent has not significantly disputed my assertion that objective morality is possible with God. The position I am defending thus remains relatively uncontested. Unless my opponent can offer a convincing alternative in the final round before conclusions, he has failed to sustain the burden of proof.