The Moral Argument for God is Sound

My Thoughts on Con and the ArgumentIn this debate, I have been faced with strong counter-arguments from Con that at times left me clueless. I thank Con for his efforts and I must say that it was worth my time to debate Con. My argument was that because God's existence or lack of existence is unable to be determined, the determination of whether or not a God is responsible for objective moral values and duties would be what was needed to win this debate. Why the Moral Argument for God is Flawed, or in Need of Clarity Since no man can prove or disprove the existence of God, no conclusion should be established that would have it's foundations resting on the existence of a physical God. However, by allowing the theoretical existence of God, one may say that objective morals and duties developed out of a lack of objectiveness and responsibility to begin with. Then because God can be shown to have an impact, even if he does not physically exist, he can be shown to theoretically exist. This was not the desired result, but it does tell how objective moral values and duties exist and why they exist.My Thoughts on Con's Argument I argue that Con has not shown that God does not exist, but that he only believes he does not exist. I offer this as proof that my argument has more merit due to the fact that the connection between an abstract God and objective moral values and duties has been shown to exist. I say again, Con has only established that he disagrees with my argument, not the existence of a God(s) or the connection between morals and God(s). The Mechanics of My ArgumentIn essence, I applied a continuum that is akin to Socrates thoughts on belief and knowledge. I used this continuum and drew an analogy that relied on beliefs and science. If you ever are looking for a book to read, I'd recommend Pierre Simon-Laplace's book on statistics. In it, Mr. Simon-Laplace's equates probability with ignorance. I realized that because probability is a reliance on guesses, it is belief. This is the information I used to understand how belief can become fact over time. The truth of this information can be seen in modern science's pursuit for greater precision and accuracy in measurements. I do not know what the original morals were like, or whether or not someone is born with them. I do know that by supposing the existence of God as thought, when a physical God cannot be confirmed nor denied, allows something to measure with. I will now show the continuum I made use of.The Logic Supporting the MechanicsBelief is the absence of fact, it must be of less value than fact. Opinion is the mixture of knowledge and belief, this places it 2nd on the continuum, and fact is nature, making it the greatest of them all. So to make it easier to remember, think of belief as 1st degree information, opinion as 2nd degree information, and fact as 3rd degree information. The analogy begins when the first man, or first humans, use 1st degree information because of the lack of 3rd degree information. The judgement of another's morals then would also be 1st degree information, because the observer has no other information. The morals are not objectively identified yet, and 1st degree information says that there must be someone greater than man, who controls all of nature, this will be the first humans thought process. As time progresses, man acquires new tools through adversity, this leads to 2nd degree information, while at the same time, the measure of another's mans actions become 2nd degree as well. Because it is only 2nd degree, there is still a belief in a higher power. However, because there is no way to know whether or not an absent God exists, the thought of him must still be strong and guiding, or of fear of retribution for wrong-doing. As more time progresses, and tools are invented to measure phenomena and objects more accurately, so too will morals be measured more accurately. This is where the belief into fact continuum lies. That because there is a lack of 3rd degree information, there is a want for it. If beliefs imply a God exists, and also facts exist, then a lack of 3rd degree information will lead to an abundance of 3rd degree information over time, having as foundation the existence of an abstract God. This is my argument. Again, because there is a belief in the existence of God,and because a concrete God can not be proven to exist or not , there will be a progression from beliefs to opinions to facts, this will continue until a concrete God is found to exist or not, having as the guiding light, the mechanics of the universe. Then because he cannot be proven or disproven, the closest to existence there can be for a God is in thoughts. By letting the abstract existence of God be cause for improvement in objectiveness, then the moral argument for God becomes, If improvement cannot be imagined, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.Objective moral values and duties do existTherefore, improvement exists. Again, because a God(s) cannot be proven to exist or not exist, the moral argument of God is no more than an argument of what can be right or wrong and why. It is then sufficient to show that because God may be imagined to exist, whatever is done is done to be more like him. Hence objective moral values and duties exist because God exist.Conclusion of my ArgumentTo reiterate, because science progresses from less accuracy and precision to the greatest accuracy and precision that is possible at the time, and because this trend may be applied to other areas of knowledge where information is applied, then it can be shown that all objective thought comes from having no objective thought to begin with. And in turn, no morals or duties to begin with, only a belief that what is right or wrong must be learnt through observation and analysis, and in turn, the imagining of an abstract entity that is more perfect than man is. Again, because God can not be proven or not proven to exist, the abstract existence is sufficient to connect objectiveness and responsibility with the existence of a God. Thank you. I thank Con again for this debate and would like to let him know I choose this debate because I thought it would help me write with more clarity with respect to my subject.