The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

Con's test for objective existence(1) Epistemology vs. Metaphysics of existenceOn this point, my opponent has yet to show why the observation is a necessary quality of existence. He can claim that plausability is a necessary criterion for probability, but remember thar Con's list only mentioned the metaphysical requirements for existence, and never mentioned any sort of epistemological requirement. In his original list, the ability to be independently observed was cited as a metaphysical characteristic of existence, not a requrement for epistemological verification. (2) Existence of mathematical and logical lawsMy opponent's response to this point is that mathematical and logical laws are just exceptions to his list and that the list still holds true in most cases. Remember though that I have shown Con's list to be itself implausible as a measure of exitence since (a) it focuses too much on epistemological verification as opposed to ontological qualities necessary for actual existence and (b) the list itself leaves out the entire realms of logic and mathematics from existence. Con's list of requirements for existence is obviously flawed. I do not need a special exeption to Con's list because the list itself contains flaws on the requirements for existence. Subjective moralityMy opponent claims that scientific beliefs are changeable and subjective and that it is the targets of scientific inquiry that remain objective and independent. However, aren't the targets of moral inquiry likewise objective? You see a man being mugged in an alley. You believe the mugger is acting immorally. The act that you are observing is always objective, regardless of whatever opinion you come to on said act. Everything my opponent has claimed on scientific inquiry can also be applied to moral inquiry. My opponent has shown no discernible problem in my analogy of scientific to moral beliefs. They both change and vary across cultures and time, however there is always a right answer. Argument concerning valuesMy opponent elaborates on his analogy to the subjectivity of money in the form of a syllogism. Here it is as follows:1) All systems of values are subjective.2) Morality is a system of values concerning human actions.3) Therefore, morality is subjective. Premise 2 of this argument is flawed. Morality in the form that I am arguing for is not a system of values but is a fact of reality. Something like killing is wrong not because it is valued by society or by a ruler to be wrong, but because of the non-natural facts of reality(namely the omni-benevolent nature of God which my opponent never mentions). My own testMy opponent has asked me to create my own test for objective existence. However, my opponent provided his own test in repsonse to my claim of the prima facie justified existence of objective morality. A test of existence is not necessary for my premise to be valid, I must only disprove any arguments against the prima facie justification of objective morality. This stems from the nature of prima facie justification. Without evidence to the contrary, my premise is valid. Therefore, I must only disprove the evidence to the contrary. I have disproved my opponent's requirement for objective existence through it's internal flaws and inconsistencies(focusing on epistemological over metaphysical existence and leaving out such laws of reality is mathemtaics and logic). ConclusionI would have much liked this debate to span more than just P1of my actual argument for God's existence. However, such was my lot. Anyway, my opponent has not given readers or voters a valid reason to doubt the prima facie justification of objective morality. Therefore, without persuasive evidence to the contrary, it can be assumed to be valid. And since my argument was valid(meaning the conclusion flows logically from the premises) my argument is sound since no other premises were objected to by my opponent.