The moral argument is sound

Cons 3rd round opener switches my claim that he may have a false view of reality by stating the same could be true of my worldview. I appeal to what is necessary to know with certainty that a view is true in regards to morality. That is the heart of the issue. I see no other option than a revelation from One who is the final reference in matters of truth because He is and He created the reality that we live and can know by Him. Other than that we are left in a sea of subjectivism. If Con will not grant my supposition that God is necessary then he needs to provide some other way in which we can know certainty? If Con can't do that then what argument does Con have that what he says is true? I stated: "Facts without God would be brute facts. They would have no intelligible relation to one another. As such they could not be known by man." He replied: “However, Pro has not shown how Bahnsen is correct (this is just a bare assertion fallacy on PGA's behalf). Facts without God could be grounded in the nature of existence itself, or in something else. Simply because a truth is not grounded in God, does not mean that it is a brute fact by default; that's a non-sequitur.”It is also a bare assertion fallacy on Cons behalf that facts could be grounded in the nature of existence itself. He reaches into his magic bag and pulls out ‘brute facts' again. He says that some beliefs hinge on these facts, facts that have no connection to other facts, but how does he know brute facts exist if there is no explanation for them? What does he mean by ‘grounded in the nature of existence’? What is the nature of existence? Again, without God it is any bodies guess.Con says: "The problem is that Pro has the burden of proof to establish the conclusion (he started the debate, and never specified a shared burden), meaning that he has to show that all the things he asserting I assume can happen, cannot happen. This has not been accomplished." Con keeps avoiding any accountability for his position by making up rules as we go, like not establishing a 'shared burden' of proof. Why is that not a given? Con says: "PGA then tries to attack my limited knowledge (which is an ad hominem). Either way, even with limited knowledge, it is not clear why Atheism cannot ground morality." Whether Con likes it or not his knowledge is limited. It is a true statement. For a true and certain knowledge of reality and morality what is necessary? There would have to be objective knowledge, a knowledge existing outside the subjective self in order to know certainty. How does Con know he has objective knowledge? He can’t if there is no objective knower or he doesn't interpret according to that knower. Without that objective knower his knowledge becomes meaningless. Knowledge of any fact to be known requires a mind. Outside of God there is no objective mind. Without God how can Con know his view is true or good? Con starts and finishes his assumptions based on his own limited autonomy with his brute facts, facts that cannot be known or explained. Does this not sound self illogical? There is no reliable connection between the mind and the object of moral knowledge for Con, because Con can't get outside of his subjectivism unless he thinks God's thoughts after him. Con is swimming in a sea of subjectivism, and being in this sea he doesn't know of anything else but this sea. He appeals to rationality and logic but behind his worldview there is nothing but irrationality. His worldview will not let him grasp the meaning of reality. There is always that doubt. He has no objective knowledge in which to base reality on. I have stated the only justifiable position to know with certainty. It does not contradict what we witness in life either. We see life coming from the living, intelligence from the intelligent - mind (Con wouldn’t know that something had intelligence without first having a mind), morality only possible with mind, yet in a godless, irrational chance universe there are no answers. Con just assumes through his own rationality that time plus chance is the ultimate answer to origins, thus his logic is ultimately a product of chance, thus ultimately irrational and illogical because it can't make sense of itself. Con says: “Pro has not shown how Bahnsen is correct (this is just a bare assertion fallacy on PGA's behalf). Facts without God could be grounded in the nature of existence itself, or in something else. Simply because a truth is not grounded in God, does not mean that it is a brute fact by default; that's a non-sequitur. Regardless, the idea that brute facts don't have any intelligible relation to one another is not warranted, just asserted.”Bahnsen is laying out the position on what is necessary for something to be correct, either God or thinking God’s thoughts after Him. Con is coming from the position that what is correct can be grounded in the nature of existence itself – which is for Con what ultimately – some irrational, non-thinking, non-living, non-being what? Is this another one of his ‘brute facts?’ It is just another way for him to dismiss the thought of God as responsible for reality. It’s another of his say anything kind of magic incantations/mantras. Con says: “Regardless, the idea that brute facts don't have any intelligible relation to one another is not warranted, just asserted.”What? How does he know there is no connection? Again, he presupposes it. It is just a useless, absurd statement that proves nothing. “A fact is brute when an explanation for it does not exist.” [1]How does he know it does not exist? Because he has no explanation he asserts that no explanation exists.Con says: “My opponent keeps endorsing the notion that God is the best explanation, but he ignores The Euthyphro Dilemma which entails that Morality cannot be grounded in God. Also, he says that without God morality would have to arise from a random, chance, non-thinking process, something without intent or purpose that is incapable of reason. No reason is given as to why something being mindless means it has to be random. I mean gravity for example isn't "random", it keeps my butt on the ground and this is consistent. It is mindless, and has no intent. Basically, my point here is that if it is mindless, that doesn't make it necessarily random. Something can have a function that can be carried out with the need for any intent or purpose at all.”I did not ignore the Euthyphro Dilemma. Con does not like my answer. As Douglas Croothuis explains:"The Euthyphro argument trades on a straw man (or straw god) that creates a false dilemma. Biblical theism….claims God as the source of all goodness on the basis of God’s character and God’s will. God’s moral will is based on God’s changeless nature…Objective moral values have their source in the eternal character, nature and substance of a loving, just and self-sufficient God. Just as God does not create Himself, so He does not create moral values, which are eternally constituent of His being.” [2] God gave man (in Adam) a free will in which he could choose to follow God’s good commands or find out for himself what evil is (doing what is contrary to God’s good, changeless nature). If man could not choose there would have been no freedom of will, and therefore no choice in man to love God of his own volition (it would be all preprogrammed). Thus man chose to know evil and God chose to allow evil that good would come of it. But God has warned that evil would always be judged, and it has and continues to be, either in Christ’s perfect merit or in each man’s merit or lack of. I ran out of space. I will continue my rebuttal in the comment section.