I Will Prove God's Existence

I am pretty confused why my opponent only made this debate one round and I also don't know why my opponent has made the debate so one sided. I mean...he literally doesn't have to do anything. I offered to let him change the debate format but he declined. Definition of Prove: to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc.(https://www.google.com...). I will be using the existence of objective morality and the existence of truth as evidence for God's existence... The Axiological Argument: a. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. My brief defense of this premise: Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code. b. Objective moral values do exist. My brief defense of this premise: Almost all people are aware that murder, lying, stealing, and etc...are wrong. it seems crazy to believe that every person just so happens to have the same subjective opinion on these basic moral principles. There must be some sort of universal moral law that exists. c. Therefore, God exists. That is the short version of the argument. Please tell me what problems you have with the argument and I will address them in the next round. Common objections answered... Only religion can give the most logical explanation for the origin of morality. Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Religious people, most of the time state that morality comes from God. This makes sense considering most people abide by an objective moral code that they expect everyone to know about. And the only way an objective moral code could exist is if a God created it. Objective morality can only come from an objective being (God). Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (C.S. Lewis). People try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective? Therefore, religion gives the best explanation for why there is an objective morality and why it exists. Even though religion gives a great explanation for why morality exists, it also gives the only real reason people have to be moral. According to religion, people are moral to receive gifts or to avoid punishment from God. Others in religion believe they are moral to be more like their loving God. There is no other reason to be moral. Although people have no reason to be moral, people may have some objections. Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves. Therefore, religion gives the only reason to be moral. Without God, there is no reason to be moral. But religion tells people to be moral to please their God or to be more like him. The Truth Argument: a. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality. Or in other words, truths make statements about what is real. For example, if I were to say that Obama is currently the President of the United States, I would be making a statement that agrees with reality. b. Truth requires a mind. Sine truths are statements...and because statements are made by a mind, then it follows that truth requires a mind. c. There are universal truths. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter who is aware of this fact. d. Therefore it follows that there must be a universal mind (God). So these two pieces of evidence prove (using definition I gave) the existence of God. Again, I don't see why this is fair to my opponent since he can't refute any argument I have made. But I guess this is the way things go sometimes.