Morality is given by the biblical God

CON, I thank you for a speedy response. It pleases me to see that you tried to use the same structure in which I have laid out my own opening argument. Not only does this structure make it easy for my opponent to understand, but also helps with organization. However, the reason I use this structure is because in a syllogism (consisting of two premises and a conclusion), in order for it to be a valid one, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. A simple example would be “All dogs can bark. Fido is a dog. Fido can bark.” [1] Notice how the conclusion necessarily is true as long as the premises are true. It is valid on the shear force of reason. The argument that I presented, is indeed a valid argument because if you accept the premises, the conclusion that must be true. So this is where your first problem is, your syllogism is not valid. The shear force of reason does not necessitate that your conclusion "Objective morality does not exist" follow from your two premises. One can easily accept P1 and P2 yet still deny your conclusion. There is nothing at all that logically necessitates one to reach your conclusion by accepting your premises. Therefore, your argument from the start is an invalid one and no one needs to accept it. You do, however, admit that this is a learning experience, as it is for me too. Therefore, I shall address your arguments in order and I hope to show that someone could easily accept your two premises but still deny your conclusion. Furthermore, I will reinforce my own opening argument, and show that one can also easily accept your two premises while at the same time find my argument a sound one. Response To P1: Morality is a result of the evolution of social creatures.I made a distinction in my opening argument between epistemology - how we come to know something, and ontology - the nature of something. I made this distinction in preparation that CON would indeed fail to distinguish the two. I can grant that the way in which we come to know moral values is done so through the evolutionary process, but that says nothing about the nature of those moral values. In CON's argument called "Morals Survive", CON shows that adopting certain moral values can increases survival. But then in "Moral Grounding", without even realizing CON's own mistake, has concluded that because most or even all of our moral values are ingrained into us by evolution, they must therefore be subjective. This is a false conclusion in that it fails, as I predicted, to distinguish between moral epistemology and moral ontology. In order to demonstrate why CON's argument fails here, I will requote and expound William Lane Craig when he says "...if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then such a gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm." [2] Here is the analogy he is making. Craig is pointing out that we come to know moral values through evolutionary processes just as we come to know the more about the physical world through processes such as observation or science. On both of these fronts, we are fallible and often get things wrong. But wouldn't it be ridiculous to then conclude that there is no objective reality in which we are subjectively perceiving, just because we come to know about the natural world in different ways and sometimes disagree? Indeed it would be. In the same way, just because we come to know moral values through evolutionary processes, doesn't mean we should deny their objective reality. Therefore, CON's argument is a fallacious one. On a side note, I personally agree that evolution has played a major role in what morals have been innately ingrained into us. But just because we come to know moral values through a process like evolution, doesn't mean those morals aren't grounded in something outside of that natural process. CON must show why this must be the case in order for this argument to succeed, and I challenge him to do so. Response To P2: What is moral varies across many cultures and populations.CON tries to show that because animals seem to have moral tendencies like our own, and because things like rape and incest are common among those in the animals kingdom, we should therefore consider morals values to be subjective. But again, CON fails to see the difference between epistemology and ontology. CON tries to point out that there can't be objective moral values by asserting that morals are "based on what we think". But that would be like saying that because we disagree and have different opinions about what the Universe is like, we must therefore conclude that the Universe isn't really there, its just a subjective illusion. Again, its fallacious to conclude something is not objective based on how we come to know about it - they call that the genetic fallacy. Response To C: There is no Objective MoralityIn this final section, CON seems to suggest that I simply "believe it therefore it is true", as if I have asserted that morals are objective without any good reasons. However, in my opening arguments, I gave several good reasons why morals are indeed objective. Furthermore, CON says "Postulating god as a measure is illogical as the only data to add to this ruler comes from what believers opined was the mind and method of god", however, this debate is titled "Morality is given by the biblical God", therefore, I do not have to give all my reasons for thinking God really does exist, I only have to show that the Christian God is a better foundation for morality than what CON has to offer. I think I have done that. CON says its simpler to just go with subjective morals, but I'm not really interested in what is simple, I want what is true. Hopefully CON can respect that. CON then asks that I show an "objective source for god". In my opening argument I state that God's nature, on the Christian worldview, is the paradigm of moral goodness, and therefore is a perfect source for grounding objective moral values. CON also tries to deny my argument by saying "God is not a fact, and therefore not a good reason to propose objective morality." But if you notice, my argument did not presuppose the existence of God. In fact, I first argued for objective morality, and then my conclusion was that "God exists". So this rejection of my argument simply fails. Your Burden:As I've stated several times throughout my response, CON fails to recognize the distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology. How we come to know moral value is an epistemological question, and I'm perfectly find conceding that evolutionary processes is the answer to that question. However, its fallacious to conclude that because we come to know moral values through evolutionary processes, they therefore are essentially illusions. The ontology of moral values is a different question, in order to deny the conclusion that morals are objective, CON is going to have to refute the arguments I gave in favor of them in my opening argument. CON tries to essentially show that because different people and animals disagree on moral values, that therefore they must be subjective. I have shown that this is fallacious logic by giving the example of the Universe and how with that too, we can disagree, but that doesn't mean the Universe is subjective. CON will have to show why this is not fallacious if he wants his argument to hold up. And lastly, CON's opening syllogism is not a valid one, as even I agree with his first two premises, but that in no way binds me to his fallacious conclusion. I look forward to seeing your response to my arguments. SOURCES:(1) https://web.cn.edu...;(2) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;