Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

Thank you Purushadasa for the quick response!My opponent wrote "Your mere agreement or disagreement with any particular statement does not have any effect on the truth of that statement." I agree with that completely, which is why I supplied argumentation next to my statement of disagreement.My opponent has ignored those arguments which I will repeat here for clarity:"If moral ideals are defined as such (a moral principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal) than statement 1 in the second proof doesn't follow from anything because in that case moral ideals are created by mortals (and can be in conflict with each other). Rendering the rest of the proof moot." "If moral ideals are defined as such (a law about how mortals ought to act created by a deity) than statement 4 is not self-evident because it could be that those "some persons" possess subjective opinions about the description of moral ideals instead of those moral ideals themselves. Rendering the rest of the proof moot."I advice my opponent to address these arguments as the judging public will surely see that these arguments where ignored otherwise.------------My opponent has chosen to interpret my example about gnomes in a different way than I had intended. He assumed that I was talking about types of gnomes that exist while my intention was to talk about types of gnomes that don't exist. This is unfortunate as this wastes a round in the debate but it could be that this is my fault; it could be that I was not clear enough about this. I will try and restate my example with "something Purushadasa doesn't believe exists", My opponent is free to substitute this with something my opponent doesn't believes exists.1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated dataabout the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engagewould necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about something Purushada doesn't believe exists.5. Therefore, subjective opinions about something Purushada doesn't believe exists exist.6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about something Purushada doesn't believe exists exist.7. Therefore, valid observation of something Purushada doesn't believe exists exists.8. Therefore, something Purushada doesn't believe exists exist objectively.------------My opponent states that I have created a "red herring logical fallacy" by proving the existence of garden-gnomes. It was however not my intention to prove the existence of garden-gnomes (see above) and I am sorry for any confusion this might have caused.------------My opponent concludes that I have proved nothing about God, nor about moral ideals. My opponent is correct in this assertion. I have not set out to prove anything about these things as I am merely trying to show the flaws in the proofs presented by my opponent in the opening statement. I am unsure how my lack of proving anything about God or moral ideals loses me the debate as the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim, and with good reason: because it is logically impossible to prove a negate AKA prove that something doesn't exist objectively.