Morality is Grounded in God.

1. "All I will say is that Science points to the existence of the soul" == All, Im asking for is a way to verify the existence of a soul and so far, You're unable to provide one. 2. "Because it is that factual error that makes us unable to be the basis for morality. " == There's no such thing as factual error. There are only belief errors. If something is a fact, People will verify it and accept it. Don't believe g=9. 8? Go measure it. Calling the existence of souls a factual error is simply nonsense because as a said, Fact requires verification and there's no way to verify the existence of a soul therefore the example you gave simply does not prove your point about factual error being the cause of moral disagreements. 3. You claim human moral disagreement makes it impossible to base morality on human. But theisms also have moral disagreements thus it is equally IMPOSSIBLE to base morality on theism. 4. "The being identified in the moral arguments which you have not defeated is a being that is unchanging, Necessary (philosophically speaking) and rational to say the least. " === More nonsense here. What does it mean for a being to be the basis for some abstract principles such as morality? I can understand if you say "Euclid's postulate is the basis for geometry" or ""Newton's law is the basis for Classical Mechanics"". You see, To be linguistically correct, The word "basis" takes 2 parameters. "A is the basis for B". In order for the statement to make sense, B has to be strictly derived from A using laws of logic. When you say God is the basis for morality, You have to be able to derive morality from God in order for the statement to be true. Since God is not a list of principles like Newton's law or Euclid's postulate, Its impossible to derive anything from God. You use words in a different context where they make no sense. 5. "Theistic oughts I refer to the oughts prescribed by the being referred to in the moral argument oughts which we decipher through reason and rationality" === again, Moral oughts cannot be reasoned out with rationality alone, Different assumption has to be made like "all men are created equal", Or "women are superior to men". Neither of these assumptions is more wrong than the other. By the very definition, Assumptions cannot be proven. Since different assumption lead to different moral system with different moral oughts. And Since there's no way rationality can helps us choose which assumption to base it upon, Rationality alone would lead us to vastly different moral system with different moral oughts and therefore moral convergence is not possible with reason and rationality alone. Also, Since rationality does not converge to the same moral system, Theistic oughts as you define it are not always consistent. If it is not always consistent then theism is just as chaotic as human when it comes to morality and therefore cannot be the basis for morality 6. "I have shown you the oughts base on religion and theism divided by factual errors! " == did you hear what i ask? I asked for example or theistic oughts. You gave me none. 7. "Yes. Voters who vote based on facts, Logic, Reason and evidence which I argue is on my side. " == OFC LOL. Why on earth would you argue those thing is on my side? 8. "Of course of all this subject to rational critical examination otherwise known as the rational enterprise of Morality. " == that is beside the point. You said moral reaction serve as evidence for objective morality. If so then how could you argue that it's ok to kill a child in any situation because the moral reaction of the parents losing their child is always excruciating pain. 9. "Depends on what you mean by verifiable if we were on a jury they way to verify consensus is if all the jury members agreed. " === You don't get the point. You said epistemic facts including a list of what we shouldn't do. I argue that is not FACT it is CONSENSUS. We argree not to do those things when we enter a debate. 10. "For example, Thanks to our knowledge about gravity and the round earth combined with geometry have changed how we may place a cornerstone or something like that" === Im quite sure you have no idea what you're talking about here. Take an engineering class, And see if engineers are taught to take curvature of earth into account. 11. Pro presents a bunch of arguments about spherical earth as though im arguing for a flat earth! NO, I argue we behave on earth as though the earth is flat. I never argue that the earth is flat. So I dont know why you would waste that much space for something i didnt; advocate for. 12. "The point of the argument from experience is that humans cannot live the life of a relativist and that thus we all believe in a moral code that we did not make but that we can dicipher. " === its not that we all believe in a moral code, WE AGREE about a moral code that we make and come to a consensus. 13. "We Make the names of the Laws we don't make the Laws and what I mean by we don't make the laws is that we don't make what the laws describe or prescribe! " == ok, That's your claim. Cool. How do you know a law is made or discover? And be sure to distinguish between a law and what it describe. A law describes pattern. A law is a statement that correlate phenomenon in the mind to phenomenon in the world. 14. "We know that a standard exists and we know that we can decipher it and thus the argument seems to suggest that we are moving closer to some sort of standard. " === "seems to suggest". OK. As you can see, Everything Pro claim is unverifiable. And as I maintained, An unverifiable statement is nonsense. I can claim the existence of an undetectable ghost in an unreachable dimension, As long as there are no way to verify it, The claim is garbage. And what claims are inverifiable? 1. "The existence of a soul. " I asked for a way to verify it. Got none 2. "Theistic oughts are not different". No way to verify, Pro didn't even give an example of a theistic ought to begin with 3. "Laws are discovered not made. " How may I verify that laws are discovered? 4. "We are moving toward a standard" Verification method? None