you cannot have morality outside of creationism

DISCLAIMERPro has misunderstood me when I said that if I hypothetically accepted his argument, it doesn't lead to the conclusion he wants, and mistakenly claimed that I have accepted his argument throughout this debate, when, on the contrary, I have provided four rebuttals for his argument and made it clear in my previous round that Pro's argument is not logically sound to be accepted, and so I definitely do not accept his first argument.Pro's reasoning suffers two major problems:A1- The argument he uses to conclude that "morality comes from creation with a purpose" is mainly based on false comparisons and logical fallacies. Hence, I reject it.A2- The argument he uses to jump from "morality comes from creation with a purpose" to "morality cannot exist outside of creationism" is based on false comparisons, logical fallacies and baseless assertions. Hence, I reject it too.REBUTTALA1- Morality comes from creation with a purposeThis argument can be summarized as such:P1- Amulets created without purposes cannot be said to be immoral.P2- Amulets created with purposes can be said to be immoral by most people. [Ad populum logical fallacy]P3- Amulets and humans are both moral agents. [False comparison logical fallacy]Conclusion: Humans need to be created with a purpose to be moral.This argument suffers from many problems, but it is mainly based on a false comparison fallacy as it equivocates between moral agents cable of intelligence and amulets that are not, and argues that amulets have to be given a purpose to be evaluated morally, and so should humans, which makes no sense as humans can create purposes of their own.Moreover, it is based on many false premises which are themselves textbook examples of logical fallacies:For instance, "Did the amulet behave the way it should? No most people will say it didn't."Rebuttal: This is an Ad Populum logical fallacy, also known as an appeal to popularity. If "most people" say it didn't, this does not mean that their answer must be true....A2- Morality cannot exist outside of creationismPro's second argument can be summarized as:P1- The mind is purely chemical reactions. [Baseless assertion]P2- The mind can be predicted by laws of physics. [False premise - Baseless assertion]P3- Following from P2, someone non-physical should put purpose in the physical. [Non-sequitur logical fallacy - conclusion doesn't follow]P4- "Non physical things cannot be explained by science and so falls into the miracle category ." [False dichtomy fallacy aka Either Or fallacy]P5- Miracles can only be performed by an agency.Conclusion: Morality was created by an agency, and so it cannot exist outside of creationism.I shall try to address the major falsehoods in this argument, although I only need to disprove one premise to defeat the whole argument:Pro argues, "What are our toughts[sic] and mind made from? Our minds are only chemical reactions in our brain.... Because is not like the soda has a mind it was just a chemical reaction. Isn"t[sic] your mind also only a chemical reaction inside of your brain?"Rebuttal: No. We cannot explain consciousness and thoughts using chemical reactions, and so Pro cannot claim that the Mind is just chemical reactions in the brain. I myself adopt the atheistic world-view of Thomas Nagel in his book Mind and Cosmos, where he uses Descartes' argument which basically says that the fact that we can imagine mind without body means that mind, to some extent, is separate from the physical body[1]. it is necessary for Pro to establish the premise "mind is just chemical reactions" as a factual premise to be used in a deductive logical argument. If he doesn't, he is simply making a baseless assertion.Pro further argues, "I"m sorry to be the one to say it but your mind is a chemical reaction that could be predicted with the laws of physiques."Rebuttal: This is blatantly false. The human mind and how it behaves is pretty much unpredictable. According to a peer-reviewed paper "Unpredictability and Indeterminism in Human Behavior: Arguments and Implications for Educational Research", it is argued that complex human behavior is unpredictable for the most part[2]. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of the paper:"This essay presents arguments for the view that complex human behavior of the type that interests educational researchers is by its nature unpredictable if not indeterminate, a view that raises serious questions about the validity of a quantitative, experimental, positivist approach to educational research. The arguments are based on (a) individual differences, (b) chaos, (c) the evolutionary nature of learning and development, (d) the role of consciousness and free will in human behavior, and (e) the implications of quantum mechanics..."Pro remarks, "Non physical things cannot be explained by science and so falls into the miracle category ."Rebuttal: This is a textbook example of a False dichotomy logical fallacy. Non-physical events not explained by science do not necessarily have to be miracles. Pro here is basing his argument on another premise which in itself is a logical fallacy, the either-or fallacy, and making it seem as if the choice is between just two alternatives: Miracles or physical things.SUMMARYPro has failed to satisfy his burden of proof, and has used two logically fallacious arguments and failed to give any convincing argument why the existence of morality necessitates the existence of creationism. Pro has to satisfy his burden of proof with logically sound arguments to win this debate. So far this has not been done. CITATIONS[1] Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. By Thomas Nagel. http://www.amazon.com...[2] Unpredictability and Indeterminism in Human Behavior: Arguments and Implications for Educational Research. Gary A Cziko. Found online on: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu....