The moral argument for God is sound.

How would I refute subjective morality? “Show that subjective morality or relativism does not make sense, nor can it.”CON: How would that support the first premise ? Suppose the above is granted, then what ? Pro would have to refute all alternative explanations for morality, not just relativism. If there is nothing objectively true morally, then subjectivism is left by default. I only have to refute subjectivism/relativism. What is left is objective morality or no morality. "Ethical subjectivism is the belief that whenever people say something is morally good, they mean they like it or approve of it." Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions, p.342. "Ethical Relativism is the belief that conflicting moral beliefs can be true at the same time and in the same sense. These conflicting moral beliefs may exist in the case of two or more individuals or in different cultures (cultural relativism) or in different historical epochs (historical relativism)." p. 343. Nash lists the implications of Relativism.1) No moral code can be better than another. Thus, there are no grounds to criticize others.2) No such thing as moral progress. Nothing is transcendent and objective to judge what is an improvement.3) Why strive to be better if moral progress is impossible?4) Accepting ethical relativism means no human being lives better morally than any other. 5) Morally reforms are not possible. 6) All choices are equally good. What moral relativism does is unravel the moral fabric of societies. Cross-examination of Con's 3rd Round I do not understand what Con is getting at with his (AM) and (GM) statements. Con keeps interjecting God morality (GM) into my statements. Doing so misrepresents my meaning. Although I hold to (GM), I question a subjective moral position. I ask, how two subjective beings holding opposite views on the same issue can both be right? Logically they can't. *** Con comments on Premise 1 (P1): "1) First my opponent proposes to prove God exists through the Bible. However, that would if successful, only prove God's existence, not the first premise." I argued that without God there would be no objective morality, in fact, no morality, just preference - hence, P1: "no God, no objective morality." I prove the biblical claims for God is sound, via prophecy, which provides soundness to His revelation on morality. God says He does not lie nor change (He speaks the truth and is not relative). *** Con says regarding "God or impersonal forces. What is the more sensible explanation?” that I create a false dilemma fallacy. He says I assume without justification that these are the only two possible positions." Con is also ASSERTING here, without support. He thinks that just by stating something he wins the point. Can Con show other viable options? If not, he fails to prove a false dilemma fallacy. Is my assertion reasonable and sensible? What are the options for the universe, life, morality? I claim they result from one of two origins:1) God as the originator of the universe, life, and morality.OR,2) Impersonal, unintentional, blind random chance as the source.Which option makes sense of the universe? *** Con falls back on his God-of-the-gaps argument/claim once again. I assert God is more reasonable to believe than evolution-of-the-gaps. Until Con gives reasonable evidence to the contrary, I will let that claim stand. *** Con: "Second, in the article a possible natural explanation for the rise of consciousness was mentioned. God wasn't." QUOTE: "How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp." The article was used to showcase that scientists can't explain how natural causes makes something conscious. They can't make sense of how. With God, I can! *** I argued the evolutionary system has no teleological end in sight - evolutionary values are always changing and subject to change depending on biological functions and who controls others. Best is never realized. What makes power right? Con wants to make it depend on "the person, the circumstances and the reference standard of quality."That does not answer the question. How does a person ever get to a best to compare values without an objective best? Con just materializes a social convention and calls it best or good. Why is it best? Answer: Because Con decides to call it so! Con: "Again, the answer depends on the people and circumstances." He can't tie it down. Two opposing conventions can both say the opposite is true. I can list many examples of cultural conventions doing this (example below *). Con doesn't have a best, but he will argue that what he believes is "good." "Good" for Con relates to his opinion or the views of a social convention he supports. Why is what he believes good? He won't say. * Quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org... 1) There are no international or multinational treaties that deal directly with abortion.2) The American Convention on Human Rights...declares human life as commencing with conception.3) Abortion is allowed in most countries (97 percent)...to save a woman's life. [Not allowed: Holy See, Malta, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua]4) Abortion in the case of rape or incest...(49 percent)5) ...[B]ecause of economic or social reasons...(34 percent)6) ...[A]bortion only on the basis of a woman's request is allowed in 29 percent of all countries..." So, logically all social conventions can't be equally valued as "right" since contradictions are evident. Con is suggesting a value can have two opposing identities and still be valid in the same meaning. Would my opponent take such a contradictory stance when describing something physical like a dog? He would not say that a dog is a cat, yet he wants to impose such a standard on moral values. Therefore, his views are inconsistent with logic or reality. They are not SOUND; they do not make SENSE. *** Con askes what is best? Answer: It is the ideal or perfect form of the value or object. Take the teacher's circle. The teacher's representation compares to the perfect. But Con has no perfect form or ideal regarding morality. He, or his convention, is just made up. Why is that best? Con would not know what a circle was unless there was an ideal. In the case of morality, he doesn't know what best is. One convention is no better than another if there is no final reference point. *** Concerning rape: I asked in Round 3: " Is child abuse/molestation right?"CON: "No." Con says he is certain. How does he derive certainty? He just plucks it out of mid-air (magic), UNLESS he can produce a fixed reference point. In Round 4 I asked: "It SHOULD be wrong by any moral standard. Does Con agree?”CON says, "...No. However, in my opinion, it would be better if all existing moral standards condemn child rape." Con believes it is only wrong for some; some condone rape. (Lock up your kids) Con does not believe it is morally evil for every moral standard to allow abusing children for fun. Who would like to live under such rules as rape for fun is permissible? His view of certainty is put into question by stating his opinion. How does his opinion equate to certainty? Does anyone else see the contradiction? He says he is certain; then he says it is only his opinion. *** Con asks how God could "create" an objective moral standard? The standard comes from His being, from who He is. Thus, not created. He doesn't 'choose' it as an option. It is His nature to do what is right and best. *** Con says if two people oppose a particular issue they 'probably' have different standards of morality. Exactly, and I'm asking which is the correct standard since they both state opposites about the same issue. He continually by-passes the question. His example about driving in England and America confuses two different physical conditions with a moral condition. Driving on the right or left is not a moral issue, it is a cultural choice. It only becomes a moral issue when someone breaks the law or causes an accident. *** I state: “Morality requires mindful being, yet not just any mindful being. Morality is not dependent on Con's belief or my belief. It is independent of either. But morality is necessarily a product of conscious beings. The question is which mind is the necessary mind. Can Con point to that mind(s)? Can Con show his thinking is objective in regards to morality?” Con poses a logical problem while not identifying X, A, B, or C.Con calls my argument fallacious.Con does not represent my position. I will substitute values into the equation and hopefully make sense of it:[1] To exist, X (morality) needs support from one person.[2] A (subjective Amoranemix), B (subjective PGA) and C (Objective God) support X (morality).[3] [Therefore], X (morality) does not depend on A (subjective Amoranemix), since B (subjective PGA) and C (Objective God) support it.[4] Also, X (morality) does not depend on B (subjective PGA), since A (subjective Amoranemix) and C (Objective God) support it.Therefore, X (morality) depends on C (Objective God). Con continually misrepresents my statement by faulty interpretation/logic. [1] Not my argument at all. (i.e., support from a necessary person) [2] Again, not my argument. My argument is that neither A nor B are the required mindful beings needed for morality to exist since it existed before either, but an objective mindful being (C) is necessary.[3] Therefore denotes a conclusion but no conclusion has yet been reached, hence -> remove it.[4] Still no conclusion.[5] (THEREFORE) My argument is that (C = God) is the necessary mindful being. Neither your subjective mind nor mine is what is needed. *** I never said mathematics is moral. I said logic, math, and morality share qualities of immateriality, eternality and are unchanging. They also require a mind to know them. Human's discover them, not invent them.