Morality is Grounded in God.

Sorry for the late response I went to bed. It is not a fact to you as you may not be familiar with the case for the soul so I will be willing to educate you. I did say that for the purposes of this debate we will assume that Humans have souls. I am making sure that the voters take notice so there will be no claiming down! No Theistic oughts are not different religious oughts are. Any sort of difference in morality is based on a factual error. So yes Theism can be the basis for morality. I did refute the argument by showing how you mix up religion and theism. So no your argument does not stand. Voters, Please take note! No, I am making sure that the voters take note of your arguments which have been refuted and thus will lead to a sound victory for me in this debate. Oh, My! Has Con been reading my arguments? I did show how prescribed oughts can be verifiable using the argument from moral reactions. We know that it is wrong to kill the innocent for fun because it can not be justified. It becomes justified when in a war. I would not make the assumption that creation of suffering is wrong because the creation of suffering can result in a greater good. I am saying the ontology of Moral Realism is not found in Humans but just because we are not the ontology does not mean we cannot be evidence for the existence of Moral Realism please refer to my arguments from Moral Realism in Round 1 of the debate. Sir! I would first argue that Evolution fits better with Theism then Secularism using Dr. Alvin Plantiga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism. However, Even if you could give me a full evolutionary account of morality than that just shows the epistemological journey that humans have taken in regards to morality. This doesn't defeat the moral arguments. If I understand your question here, You are asking me why morality has to be objective. Am I correct? The answer is that it doesn't have to be but the point is that it is not and that leads a trail to God or Theism. An epistemic fact is a prescribed ought taken as a truth of reality relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation. For example, One could argue that have a critical discussion that is not filled with logical fallacies or that does not turn into a "flame war". Then one "ought" to not misrepresent another's argue or must concede when their position is defeated. Thus an Epistemic Fact is that one ought to be Intellectually Honest which ties into Moral Honesty and that is how we can say that Epistemic and Moral Facts are nearly identical. I would invite my opponent to remember that our Engineering systems have changed since the discovery of a round earth. The point is that you are being irrational to take your father and say that because my father is an engineer and he doesn't do this that means that all other engineers do the same. Constant gravitational acceleration when did we talk about this? How does this have anything to do with the topic of discussion? Most people would say that the arguments for God lead back to Christianity, For example, Some would say the Moral arguments lead back to the God of Christianity. I believe that the actions should just be treated as arguments for Theism and when we do that then we can start discussing the historicity of the different religions and thus I believe that such will lead to Christianity. Okay. I not really a sports player so if you see me on the news it may be for something else. Such as my political ambitions. What I am saying here is that we didn't make what the laws prescribe we just discovered them just like we didn't make want the laws of logic describe. I said that he made the symphony. The Musicians of history named the notes to describe sounds they heard. They did not make the sounds inherently exist but they used the notes to describe the sounds they heard. This is applied to the Laws of Logic and the Moral law. The point here is that if humans are progressing and converging then that means that we inherently believe in an objective standard that is external to our cognitive faculties such as sense perception. We do not know the standard because if we did then the standard would be grounded in us and you would have won this debate because I would have never made this debate. The point is that using rationality we have realized objectively prescribed oughts that exists. Humans will never be perfect in this world but our imperfections do not disprove Moral Realism and if anything adds fire to the position that Morality is grounded in God or Theism. This is not nonsense. We have reasoned out that stealing for self-gain is immoral even if it is altruistic. We know that a standard exists and that we can decipher it through reason and thus we can see and slowly but surely come to understand the morals of our actions. Conclusion: My Opponent misunderstands my arguments, Goes off topic and forgets that in a formal debate opponents present arguments and try to refute each other's arguments otherwise known as the Socratic Method. My opponent still hasn't defeated my arguments and can do better. Please try again. Blessings!