The moral argument for God is sound.

Pro again omitted to add reference standards to his questions.PGA : “Con's God-of-the-gaps argument is moot.1) Con's argument could just as easily be called evolution-of-the-gaps since [ . . . ] speculation.”I didn't even mention evolution.PGA : “Con's argument is the argument from contradiction, not mine.[*]What does he have that bolsters his view that subjective morality is correct?[**]”[*] Pro does not attempt to support that. He just claims it out of the blue.[**] My views are irrelevant. Only my claims matter.PGA : “Right and wrong are what morality should be built upon, not subjective preferences. Con's Godless standard is a changing chamelon.”Notice again how pro went off topic : However abysmal my morality may be, that does not support the moral argument.Pro invites the fans of the nirvana fallacy to conclude that what should be, is.PGA : “Of course! Objective morality abides in logic! It has what is NECESSARY for morality to be true. Two conflicting statements CANNOT both be true at the same time and in same manner. “That pro does not just think that last statement worth mentioning, but even underlining, illustrates how far he is removed from what this debate should be about : the soundness of the moral argument.* * *I won't get into the proof by contradiction sideline as it doesn't really apply, since pro doesn't try to prove the premises.PGA : “Con: "No one really understands how objective morality can exist, hence, unless we invoke magic, it doesn't."Not true. Con does not understand so he equivocates that no one understands.”Pro mistaken, for I know he is clueless, as I have extensively debated him on the topic.Besides, pro missed the point. The argument is addressed at those whodo not believe morality comes from the Abrahamic God. Therefore, whether believers understand morality is irrelevant.PGA : “Objective morality exists by the impossibility of the contrary. It is impossible to have "rights" and moral obligations without a best we derive rights from, so Con has to 1) either establish why his views are objectively moral or 2) that subjective morality is possible.”These are just a few of the many bare assertions pro makes. I can't afford to challenge them all. I invite pro the prove all the relevant ones and retract the rest.Of course subjective morality is possible. Tons of people have very personal, very subjective and even inconsistent opinions on all sorts of moral issues (something pro complains about). However, like most of what pro argues about, that is irrelevant, for it supports nor undermines the moral argument.In addition, putting quotes around rights does not provide clarity about its meaning.PGA : “2) If he goes with subjective morality Con needs to make sense of how two opposing subjective value systems can both be right, or which one is correct. Logically, they can't.”That illustrates something else pro fails to understand, namely that truth does not apply to standards (with possible exceptions, like the standard of truth). Pick any standard and try proving it true or false. You can't. Truth only applies to statements. Best one could do is (dis)prove individual statements that may be part of a standard.PGA : “Con then questions how theists invoke God as the conclusion.Simple: God gives credence to morality.”Pro has not supported that. He has only claimed (not proven) that God has certain attributes and argues that those attributes make one the proper source for morality. For that he points to the problems of the real world : See what happens when that source doesn't exist.Basically, pro is arguing that his/God's morality is the best, which is off topic.PGA : “The theist is NOT appealing to magic at all, but to an ultimate, objective being as necessary.”God perfectly qualifies as magic, as no theist has ever explained how God does it (or anything), i.e. the science behind it. Closest I have seen as an explanation comes from William Lane Craig as a third option to the Euthyphro Dilemma : morality comes from God's nature. How that works ? No one knows.PGA : “Con then goes into discussing/determining what objective morality is by stating the necessity of language.I agree communication is needed, and I don't refuse to accept this as Con claims.”Pro committed a straw man fallacy, as I did not claim pro refuses to accept that. I have already explained the material he does refuse to accept in the thread 'Objective morality argument' (http://www.debate.org...). A fragment of the conversation :PGA 479 : “On that basis I again ask the question why is you subjective morality morally true? Opposite truth claims cannot both be true. Either Hitler's morality was true or it was false. It can't be both true and false at the same time. Either he was right or he was wrong. He can't both be right and wrong at the same time and in the same sense.[60] [ . . . ]”Amoranemix 864 (2nd response, 1st see 799) : “Of course, in a different sense he could be both right and wrong at the same time, which you knew. That is why you had added the guarding term 'in the same sense'. So, have you truly grown more ignorant or are you dishonest ?Suppose Alice in England says : “It is right to drive on the left side of the road.”At the same time Bob in the USA says : “It is wrong to drive on the left side of the road.”They are 'clearly' contradicting each other. So who of them is right ?”PGA : [no response]Pro himself brought up traffic lights and I tried using that example to explain that apparent contradictions may not be real. The reader can discover how that went from page 28 on (posts 823, 884 and 885). Pro dismissed that example as fictional. He dismissed the example of contradictory side-of-road drive rules as 'change of subject'.Pro will not allow his ignorance, the foundation of his God-belief, to be weakened.PGA : “Logic is also required. As for what Con wants me to glean from this web link, there is no summary to know, except it refers to page 11. Please clarify this!”Sorry, but I don't know of any link to page 11.Pro follows with questioning the quality of my morality, which is off topic.This subtopic illustrates typical behaviour of pro. He blows smoke, sows doubt around the topic and criticizes his opponent's worldview, hoping to create enough confusion to give the impression I am wrong and that maybe God is the solution.PGA : “I ask the reader, does 2+2=4 DEPEND on opinion or is it a necessary truth?”I ask the reader, do those symbols, their meaning and the syntax of the expression depend on the opinion of people or are they imposed by some law of nature (or God) ? If an alien civilization that used a different mathematical syntax and vocabulary wrote :“2-2=4”Would they be wrong ? Would someone be able to prove they are wrong ?Pro is apparently unable to make the distinction between a concept and a term. A concept is a part of reality. A term is a name, tag or label that is used to refer to a concept. A concept is that which fits the description / definition of a term. It is the meaning behind a term.Although a concept may be objective, terms are chosen, as are the concepts associated with them.Hence, alien mathematics may look completely different, even if it is conceptually the same as ours.The same goes for morality. We should not evaluate moral claims, but the meaning behind the claims, thus interpret the claims first. Unless we want to believe in God of course.PGA : “I'm not following Con's argument regarding raping children for fun. The ambiguity needs to be clarified. What does he mean? 1. Raping children for fun is wrong GM.2. Raping children for fun is right GM.Which is it? Does Con believe it is wrong GM only for some?”I don't know what ambiguity pro is referring to. I realize now that God is defined as omnibenevolent. Therefore, raping children for fun is wrong GM.PGA : “It SHOULD be wrong by any moral standard. Does Con agree?”The answer is obviously no. However, in my opinion, it would be better if all existing moral standards condemn child rape.***PGA : “Con's definition of morality: "...morality is a standard that applies to behaviour and agents," “is sunk by Tim Barnett's four points:”None of the points even address my definition. Nonetheless I will address 3 and 4.PGA : “3. Evolutionary Naturalism Explains Morality AwayEvolution is all about survival of species. This means, on an evolutionary view, moral beliefs are fitness directed, not truth-directed.”In the real world people have beliefs that are not truth-directed. Would that not be the case if God existed ?PGA : “4. Evolutionary Naturalism Undermines All Moral BeliefsOn an evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust our moral convictions. [ . . . ] Minimally, this means we could never know whether our moral beliefs correspond to moral facts.”I never claimed moral beliefs are facts. The above applies as well to beauty beliefs as well as many other opinions. None of it supports the existence of God. Throughout this debate pro tacitly assumes that there is some ultimate, true moral standard out there, one that is not subject to opinion. I predict he will never prove that.***PGA : “My intent was to find out how Con can make sense of morality if his or some other relative changing mind is his highest appeal. It begs the question of why he gets to determine good based on his preferences.”Pro has yet to prove that I get to determine what is good based on my preferences. He just assumes it.In addition to the premises of the moral argument pro should address what I actually claim in stead of what he wants me to believe.PGA : “Instead, Con turns the tables to make it all about God's morality (GM) and my belief system, thus avoiding the questions (as usual).”Pro refused to share what morality he was referring to (a requirement I clearly mentioned) to make it difficult for me to answer his questions. Confusion is his greatest weapon.May the truth prevail.