Objective morality exist, Top Down (God) vs Bottoms Up (Natural)

Thank you for issuing the debate challenge, Con.Throughout this debate, I will be employing the classical definition of God developed by Descartes. That is, "God" will be defined as the manifestation of all non-physical perfections. This can be simplified as "the perfect being."[1]Why atheistic systems of morality cannot be objectiveAll forms of morality are essentially a system of values, an argument that one should or should not behave a certain way because of the desirability of the outcome. Whether it be the pleasure of hedonism, the duty of deontology or the worship of theism, the moral lawgiver's “because” is his ultimate value. The difficulty of converting someone to your moral viewpoint lies in convincing them to share your ultimate value. It is in this area that religionless morality fails.The atheistic worldview can have only a surface understanding of right and wrong. When asked why a particular action, stealing for instance, is wrong, most atheists will respond with a moral platitude that they inherited from their culture, such as “stealing is wrong because I would not want to be stolen from.” If pressed further, it becomes apparent that tying their belief that stealing is wrong to any ultimate moral value is impossible for them. One can simply ask why we should treat others the way we want to be treated, starting a cycle and causing the conversation to become an infinite regress. Attempting to use a moral principle to argue for the existence of moral principles is neither compelling or rational, and it must finally be admitted that the atheist's morality is subjective opinion. This point has been widely affirmed by atheist thinkers throughout the centuries. Perhaps French naturalist philosopher Julian Offray de La Mettrie put it most elegantly when he stated that "natural law is nothing but a feeling which belongs to the imagination like all other feelings."[2] In other words, morality is, according to Mettrie, a highly subjective and personal experience—an opinion.Why religion is necessary for objective moralityNaturalists often argue that the self-determination of the human species lends weight to subjective opinion, making its moral judgments valid. But let us consider that every human being on the planet forms moral opinions. Why is the opinion of the hero any more valid than that of the tyrant? They are on the equal playing field of being human and there is nothing in their nature that makes their system of morality inherently more valid than that of the other. In fact, from the standpoint of objective morality, the tyrant is most likely right on some ethical issues while the hero is wrong on others. There is an impasse of moral opinion here that can only be resolved by abandoning moral opinion altogether. For morality to exist, there must exist some kind of moral authority. This is where theism (and its subsets) surpass other worldviews. God is a being who transcends humans, who is omnibenevolent. Because of his transcendence, God's moral opinion supersedes the moral opinions of humanity. By virtue of this, religious faith allows humans to possess an objective moral guideline.I look forward to my opponent's response.Sources1. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes2. Qtd. in The Universe Next Door by James W. Sire