Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

Thanks again for the quick response.The reason I used the gnomes example was to show that before anyone can make the fourth statement of the first proof, they would need to assert the existence of the ATQ. Because without that assertion the opinions formed could simply be about something else."I already anticipated this, and if you want, we can go with "living gnomes," because I'm sure that you and I can agree that, unlike Home Depot gnomes (which are not living but do exist and are constructed from plaster and paint), living gnomes actually do not exist."As my opponent has shown with this example of "living gnomes" you can tumble this proof by simply stating "living gnomes do not actually exist so no human being could possibly observe them". The same can be done with "moral ideals"."1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated dataabout the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engagewould necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about moral ideals."No they don't: moral ideals do not actually exist, so no human being could possibly observe them. Observation of the ATQ would be required in order to form a subjective opinion about the ATQ because if the ATQ is not observed, then any subjective opinion formed would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). Therefore nobody actually has any subjective opinions about moral ideals -- what we have about them is objectively true statements and objectively false statements, but we can not possibly have any subjective opinions about moral ideals.5. Therefore, subjective opinions about moral ideals exist.No they don't: (See above).6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about moral ideals exist.No they don't.7. Therefore, valid observation of moral ideals exists.No it doesn't.8. Therefore, moral ideals exist objectively.No they don't.My opponent states "The argument I posited does not prove that any nonexistent thing (such as a living gnome) exists -- it only proves that existent things (such as non-living plaster gnomes) exist." which is false as the argument doesn't prove that existent things exist without first asserting that they exist which turns the proof into a tautology. This is the flaw in the proof. The proof cannot be used to prove existing things exist and cannot be used to prove that non-existing things do not exist.My opponent states "In actual debate, the burden of proof rests equally on both parties, not just one." I do no agree with this, as the topic of this particular debate is just one proof (namely the one the subject). Adding more proofs to the debate would muddy the subject. This debate is only about whether or not that one proof is valid or not. The only thing the Contender would need to do to show the proof invalid is point out flaws in the proof itself, not argue for the null hypothesis of "god exists".Whether or not negative statements that are not tautologies can be proved and whether or not evidence of absence can ever be put forward is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The subject is the proof named "Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:" in the subject and I have shows the flaws in that proof:1. "If moral ideals are defined as such (a moral principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal) than statement 1 in the second proof doesn't follow from anything because in that case moral ideals are created by mortals (and can be in conflict with each other). Rendering the rest of the proof moot."2. "If moral ideals are defined as such (a law about how mortals ought to act created by a deity) than statement 4 is not self-evident because it could be that those "some persons" possess subjective opinions about the description of moral ideals instead of those moral ideals themselves. Rendering the rest of the proof moot."The fact that the proof can be refuted in the same way that my opponent has refuted that proof when it was used to prove the existence of living gnomes shows the (second) flaw mentioned here.