Objective Moral Values and Duties must be grounded in God

I think that we can both agree that logic is valid and that reality exists, correct? If not, then there's no reason of having this debate in the first place. During this debate, I will support the idea that the state of reality itself grants moral status to actions. As my opponent said, actions such as torturing a child are morally wrong. However, our reasons for coming to that conclusion are very different. He claims that, since the actions seem to be right or wrong to him, the actions are objectively right or wrong. This is not enough to substantiate his claim, as he gives no reasons as to why they are right or wrong. Since this is the case, his argument for the existence of God is not particularly strong. "In this view, morality is only {...} theist uses the word." Why does the chance of a different reality void the possibility of the things in the current reality being objective? Accepting the fact that free will exists as to not derail the debate, if I happened to eat an apple yesterday, could I not say that my consuming of the apple is an objective description of my actions during the time period in which I ate the apple? If your argument was valid, the possibility that I ate, say, a banana instead, would mean that I could not objectively say that I ate an apple had I, in fact, eaten an apple. The past cannot be changed; it is set in stone. If it could be changed, the reality in which I said that I had eaten an apple would not be the same as it was before the change, and therefore could be said to be a "different" reality. "Moreover, what makes this set of morals binding {...} they do not oblige us." The fatal flaw in this argument is that morality simply describes what is; the current state of what exists. I'll explain more about this when I make my main arguments, as it's a fairly big point and I would like to keep it organized with the other points. "Finally, societal or cultural moral reform would be impossible. {...} Objective moral rules are not like that; there is no getting out of them." I don't quite understand this argument. Would this not apply to the morality set in place by God, if the majority of people subscribed to a different moral theory? How does this make objective morality without God impossible? If the moral rules were in fact objective, the opinion of the majority wouldn't matter at all. "An atheist might also adopt a Natural Law stance {...} reality in the same manner?" I have never heard of an argument for natural law using another reality as its justification, except for the claim that an omnipotent creator who transcends the universe created the moral laws. As for how he can perceive the reality accurately, I would like to turn the question back to you. How do you know that you perceive the world correctly enough to make the claim that objective morality requires God? If you would like to hold this line of reasoning, you would have to admit that it's possible for there to be objective morality without God, which would refute all your arguments already put forth. "Where the survival and procreation of one"s genes run contrary to these morals, it would make sense to ignore them completely." As before, I will address this later. Now, on to my main arguments as to why objective morality can exist without God. As stated earlier, I'm assuming that reality exists, and that reason can be used in order to derive accurate conclusions about the world around us. The most basic fact, based on the number of "layers" it sits upon, is the fact that A is A. From this axiom, one can derive further conclusions, each growing more complex. Eventually, one comes to the point where objects in the world can be identified as having certain qualities, and those qualities allow the objects to be put into various groups. For a group to be worth having, it must be exclusive. In other words, it must not accept those objects which do not have a certain quality: the quality the grouping is based upon. If an object does not have that certain quality, it cannot be said to be part of the group. Objects are also combined, forming more and more complex objects. Eventually, small components are able to form "living" creatures (with the word "living" used simply for convenience, as it's a fairly meaningless and arbitrary-defined term that people like to throw around and attention should not be drawn to it with any intensity other than the bare minimum), and these bundles of objects can be said to have qualities of their own, as a result for all that they are composed of. Therefore, these entities can also be put into groups, much like the smaller objects. If an entity were to lose a quality that it must have to be in a certain group, again, much like the smaller objects, it cannot be part of the group. Some of these creatures are known to be part of the group called Man (Man being different from Human), and this group has restrictions on membership just as any other does. To be awarded the title of being part of Man, one must be able to reason. The key to the lock that is on the gate of Man resides in the mind of the creature, and one must work to find it. Just being part of a certain species isn't enough, as the groups Man and Human have different restrictions. A chicken, had it shown the ability of logically thinking, could be accepted alongside you or I. The connection from this to morality is fairly simple, though I would wish to define morality first. Many define a moral action as "something one should do" and an immoral action as "something one should not do". I would like to offer my own edits onto those definitions, with "something one should do" becoming "something one should do if one wishes to maintain a certain quality", with that quality being the one which allows access to the club of Man, reason, and "something one should not do" becoming "something one should not do if one wishes to maintain that very same quality". In this way, morality describes what is. For you to reject it as being subjective, unless you find a specific instance of a flaw in the logical flow of the argument, you would have to reject every facet of reality as being subjective, even that core axiom, that foundational bedrock which, with much struggle, bears every single fact upon its back. Having informed the reader of this debate of my position, I am now going back to the previous concerns of my opponent. "Moreover, what makes this set of morals binding {...} they do not oblige us." The hypothetical sociopath would have to spit in the face of all logic, which dictates otherwise. "Where the survival and procreation of one"s genes run contrary to these morals, it would make sense to ignore them completely." If and only if the person in question desires to lose his status as being part of Man and lose all rights associated with that (rights, of course, not being "granted", but by being necessarily in place because of the status of reality). I look forward to seeing my opponent's response.