God is the Best Explanation for Morality

I will avoid what you call "fisking", despite my opinion that it is a perfectly valid debate tactic. Attacks on Premise 1 You say that I did not address your argument, but I clearly did. You are saying that objective morality implies God. I am saying that even if objective morality does exist, this is not a proof for God. They are unrelated. You are saying that objective morality is communicated to us through commands like "Do not lie" and "Do not steal". I said very lucidly that you are making the assumption that these commands come from God. God itself is the ad-hoc construction. God is specifically used to justify an objective morality. Your first defense for premise 2 clearly implies this. Premise 1 makes the assumption that Objective morality is proof of God. I am not making a straw man out of your position, you are clearly stating this. If I am indeed mistaken, clarify. I also extend my point that you operate under the assumption that objective morality exists, and that your arguments supporting the existence of objective morality are not convincing in the slightest. Attacks on Premise 2 A man believes that something is wrong, and doesn't feel justified in believing so unless it is objectively true. Therefore, objective morality is true. Not only does this argument not prove objective morality, but it does not shift the burden of proof. You are making the assertion that there is objective morality, and have presented various non-proofs. I have simply pointed out how they are not proofs. The burden of proof is on you, as you are the one making the claim. I am only pointing out how what you consider to be proof is not actually proof at all. Your comparison to morality and a tree is faulty. A tree is something that exists in the physical world. Morality on the other hand, is not physical. Your defense of my points against (2) and (3) are not adequate. Whether something has subjective meaning or not is completely irrelevant to the point of there being an objective morality. Challenges to the Human Dignity and Equality Argument My objection to this argument was that it fell into the same pitfalls of the previous argument.. Using subjective opinion as proof for something objective, and relying on too many assumptions. I'll elaborate. You use the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as evidence to human equality and dignity. This is not evidence that human beings are equal or have dignity, this is evidence that the United Nations believes in human equality as it defines it. At the same time, even if I were to go along with your assumption that human beings are equal, this in no way implies that God exists. This is a non-sequitor like your first argument. Your first premise is utterly absurd, and the second premise can not be objectively true. Your defense of the theistic position doesn't even make sense, as you say that we are made in the image of God(which is a property), yet we are not equal because of a decreed property. A Word on "Best Explanation" This is a big argument from ignorance. If I do not feel the need to assert a position, I do not need to. All I need to do is demonstrate the weakness of your logic. You have made an assertion that you can not back up. It would be unreasonable for you to expect anyone to take your position as fact.