The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

I hope that the voters understand it, but for my opponent's sake, I'll go over it again for clarity, while countering my opponent's arguments. RESOLUTION INTERPRETATION My opponent presents a rather lengthy section about the resolution interpretation stating that I have completely misunderstood, been debating wrong, etc. However, it seems this is not misunderstanding on my part, but my opponent's part. My reasoning is that he arrives at the same interpretation as the one I am debating. My opponent claims that I am confusing the cause of objective morality, and seems to believe that I am saying that both God and objective morality exist and justifying my point by saying that one caused the other. That in itself is a logical fallacy, however that is not what I am doing. My opponent states I must show that objective morality can ONLY exist if God exists. This is EXACTLY what I am doing. I am showing that if God exists, than objective morality exists and that if God doesn't exist then neither can objective morality. This is clearly what my opponent is demanding and something I am clearly doing. My opponent summarizes his "Resolution" speech with my own words saying "there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. " I agree. This is what I have been saying since last round and what I have been arguing the entire debate. ARGUMENTS I will be answering my opponent's attacks which are in the form of questions, generally, and then pointing out what my opponent failed to attack and finally summarizing my points. "Pro makes some points about the definition of God being compatible with the Christian concept of God. Ok but what does this prove? " I wasn't attempting to prove anything with this alone; I was simply adopting a definition that would be easier for both sides to work with. Your definition of God fit the Christian God's bill and your capitalization of 'god' implied the Christian god, so I'm using the Christian god as the "God" referenced in the resolution. "There [are] [a lot] of different 'Christian' Gods out there. " I realize that there are many different concepts of God that different Christians worship, however I explicitly referred to the God of the Christian Bible. I will cede that there are different interpretations of the Bible, however no rational interpretation can deny the fact that the Christian God uses a system of objective morality. This is evidenced in the existence of the ten commandments. My opponent, in his opening speech, states that an example of objective morality would be some sort of moral law that is always wrong or right in any situation. These commandments are exactly that, and claim some are wrong in every situation. "Some person saying that is is objectively right or wrong doesn't mean it is. Your going to need more than your own assertion of biblical morality to back that up. " You have to remember that this isn't some person, it's God. The definition of God that you provided states that one characteristic of God is all-powerful. If an all-powerful being has the will for something to exist, then it does. God says that objective morality exists, and because he is all-powerful, it does. This is taken simply from the definition my opponent provided. "How is objective morality an inherent characteristic of the God in the Christian bible ? " If the Christian God according to the Christian Bible is true, then so is the Christian Bible. Remember, it's not my responsibility to prove that God is real, but to prove that IF he was real THEN that is the ONLY way objective morality can exist. Anyway, if the Bible is true, then it's contents are also true, including the part regarding the ten commandments. As I previously showed in the last argument, the ten commandments show that, according to my opponent's definition of objective morality, objective morality is a system that is used by God. If this is so, then we see that objective morality is a characteristic brought about directly by God. Remember, these are God's commandments made by him, not man, as is evidence by Moses going to Mt. Sinai in order to obtain the commandments. "Even if one of the Christian Gods is true, how does this prove that God is a necessary pre condition and not just a possible prior condition ? " I actually showed in my argument in Round 2 that has STILL been unrefuted that God is a necessary precondition, not just a possible prior condition. My opponent has still failed to even address this argument. If he fails to once more in his next speech, it will be clear that he is simply ignoring it. However, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and refer him to my speech in round 2 under the section "ARGUMENT". "A simple question remains, has Pro proved that God is a necessary pre condition for the existence of objective morality ? " Yes. I have clearly shown with multiple arguments, including symbolic logic arguments, that objective morality will ABSOLUTELY exist if God does and that if God doesn't exist then objective morality ABSOLUTELY CAN'T exist. I've shown this multiple times with many arguments and my opponent has hardly addressed many of them. He has simply gone over the resolution again (which I am following even according to him) and some minor points that I've already addressed in previous arguments. " I could concede at this point that God exists and that the existence of God means objective morality exists, but this doesn't prove that God is necessary for objective morality to exist. " My opponent is right here, that alone doesn't prove that God is necessary for objective morality. However, I've shown in round 2 under "ARGUMENT" why God is necessary for objective morality. I'll reiterate again how my opponent failed to address this. " In order to prove that, Pro would need to show that not only is God a prior condition for objective morality, but that God is the ONLY possible prior condition" I've done this. Refer to "ARGUMENT" in Round 2 and the three pillars in Round 3. CONCLUSION I've done this in this round: A) I've shown how my opponent has vied for a resolutional interpretation that I am ALREADY arguing for. B) I've shown how my opponent failed to address many of my arguments. C) I've adequately refuted the few arguments my opponent did address. D) I've clearly organized my arguments into a Round 2 "ARGUMENT", Round 3 'pillars', and Round 4 'quote and answer's. I've made it as abundantly clear as possible how I've kept my burden of proof and how my opponent has failed to even mention theirs. My opponent states we have reciprocal burdens of proof, but then doesn't even address my Round 2 and 3 arguments against him. I await my opponent's response, and sincerely hopes he addresses my arguments and upholds his burden of proof. Thank you.