Naturalism provides a more plausible explanation for objective morality than God.

Opening RemarksVery good, phantom. I like the way you clearly presented your case. I would first like to say that I agree with the two main statements in your introduction:1. We need not spend time trying to prove naturalism/God is ultimately true, just that our respective beliefs provide a more plausible foundation for objective morality than the other.2. Your definition of "plausible" was perfectly fine; I accept it.Now on to the rebuttals...Could God cause objective morality?I share my opponent's experiences in this case; I have yet to meet anyone, theist or atheist, to dispute the idea that God could cause objective morality, and I won't dispute it either.What type of morality would exist if God was the cause?/Does this type of morality exist?Phantom says that God would most likely create some sort of moral intuition for humans so we can intuitively know the answers to questions of morality. I agree; if God existed, he would have given us some sort of shared moral intuition, but not the kind we notice we actually have.No, in fact, the kind of moral intuition that we actually have is more plausibly supported by naturalism, not God. By that I mean our moral intuitions are more likely to have come from evolution by natural selection than from God.Consider the question: "If your house was on fire and could save only one, which would you save: a newborn puppy or a newborn human?" Our intuition tells us immediately to save the newborn human. In fact, our intuition tells us that the loss of any other kind of life is better than the loss of a human, that the torturing of any other kind of life is better than the torturing of a human. This is the kind of moral intuition that would most likely come from evolution by natural selection, not God.These are just a few examples of what our moral intuition tells us:1. Euthanasia is wrong; we must continuously try to remedy the problems until he/she dies naturally.2. Abortion is wrong; fetuses must continue to live to become adults.3. Killing fifty cows is better than killing one human.As you can see, they are things specifically fine-tuned to promote the continuation of our own species, precisely the kind of things natural selection would want us to believe so we can continue to exist from generation to generation. But are these the kinds of things God would want us to believe intuitively?I think Phantom (or any theist) would imagine God as being not only good, but perfectly good; not only just, but perfectly just. If I were God, I would have made our moral intuition say things like "The pain felt by a cow is equal to the pain felt by a human" and "A life non-existent is better than a life of only physical suffering". Instead, we have intuitions like "Slaughter as many cows as necessary to feed human hunger" and "Even when a person appears to be beyond medical help, do not kill that person".Again, though, while the moral intuitions given to us by natural selection are crude, we can understand moral truths more clearly through logical reasoning. And the crudeness of these intuitions by no means negates the idea that they were given to us by natural selection (as opposed to by God); in fact, the crudeness of our intuitions explicitly suggests they were given to us by natural selection and not God. We can understand logically that hurting a dog is wrong, in fact, as wrong as hurting a human, but that is not what our moral intuition tells us, though we'd expect it to if it was given to us by a perfectly good God.Therefore, the resolution remains intact: Naturalism provides a more plausible explanation for objective morality than God.