If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

Possibility and BOPExtend my BOP evidence. It is not enough to merely assert something exists in the absence of arguments in support of a position. In order to show that something is true, you cannot just refute arguments about how it is false; you must erect a case of your own to prove that it is true. Notice how the evolution argument says that OMV CANNOT be grounded in nature because evolution does not produce OMV. If my argument works, it would mean that the following are contradictory:(1) OMV exist(2) If OMV exist, evolution is the explanationHe must show that 2 is true, because on naturalism, evolution is the reason we have moral values at all; if we don’t exist (if life does not evolve) there is no law about murder because there is nothing to murder. This is true unless my opponent is to ground OMV in some sort of Platonic way. If not, he must ground them in the contingent physical world, WHICH IS a contradiction.EVOLUTION He caricatures the argument. Remember, on atheism/naturalism, OMV must, by definition, be grounded in something physical. Assuming evolution is true, OMV, if they exist, must be contingent on (1) life coming into being and (2) evolution of conscious creatures. But if OMV are contingent on anything, they are, by definition, not objective! I assume my opponent accepts the fact of evolution. My argument is that OMV cannot be grounded in evolution. He CONCEDES THIS, which means he MUST provide a plausible alternative to think that OMV can exist in the physical world, without a transcendent law giver. His argument ASSUMES evolution is true, because without it there could not possibly be OMV. How can murder be ‘wrong’ if no beings exist or if there are no conscious creatures? Its not wrong for a bee to kill another bee. He offers a caricature of a syllogism I never made.1.If OMV cannot be grounded in evolution on atheism, OMV do not exist2. OMV cannot be grounded in evolution on atheism3. Therefore, OMV do not exist.P1 is true because if OMV exist, they are contingent on evolution producing things that have moral duties and can apprehend moral values. P2 is true for reasons given, none of which were responded two. The two premises are sound, from which the conclusion follows by necessity.SPECIESISMExtend this argument. He just plays semantics about the definition of murder. TURN: If he cannot give an objective definition of murder, he undermines his own view!!! How is something objectively right or wrong if it is based on how HE or I define ‘murder’? Either way, murder is the wanton killing of someone who did not deserve to be killed or who did not do anything that would warrant the killing. If OMV exist, murder is objectively wrong. The point is, on atheism/naturalism, there is no objective way to say X is right or wrong since it is based on societal consensus, which is arbitrary and subjective. If everyone thought raping kids was right, it would be so. If aliens came here an liked our meat and were significantly more intelligent than us in the same way that we are more intelligent than fish, who are we to say murder is wrong? They disagree. ABSURDITY OF CONDEMNATIONYou can just extend this argument. He attacks none of the warrants, he just defaults to this idea that its possible. This argument is a reason to think that its impossible for OMV to exist without God, since it would be absurd to condemn an act as immoral on atheism; there is just no foundation on which something independent of human belief can be based. Without a necessary being, what we CHOOSE to condemn is what is condemned. As I pointed out, if everyone thought X was wrong, X would be considered wrong, even if X was giving money to poor people. You cannot objectively condemn someone on atheism, since nothing physical can ground something objective. OMV exist necessarily, in every possible world and its absurd to think that in the absence of rational agents, some things would still be objectively wrong. Morever, on atheism, societal consensus is the basis for condemnation, and that is NOT objective. He addresses no warrants.DIVINE COMMANdHere he makes three assertions:1.He does not understand the argument. The argument is “If God exists, there is a sound foundation for OMV.” Notice how this is a conditional claim, I do not need to prove the antecedent of the conditional. The conditional can be true while God does not exist. 2.Its objectively true that its greater to be the paradigm of morality as opposed to conforming to some already existing state of affair. That is just what it means to be a greatest conceivable being, and this being would have unnecessary limits if He had to conform to anything He could “possibly” be the paradigm of.“Why should we pick one person known as "God" as the moral paradigm of goodness over another person like Hitler or Mother Teresa ?”^ Vote for me on this! He is absolutely correct, it is absurd to ask this question on atheism because there just is no basis to objectively claim one is better than the other. Even if Divine Command is circular, he still shoots himself in the foot by indicting it in this way. But its not circular. He misunderstands it: God has it as an essential property (goodness), or a property that cannot be changed in any possible world. There is nothing circular about saying that goodness is an essential property of God, and therefore, OMV necessarily exist if God exists.