God is the Best Explanation for Morality

May this discussion be enlightening to everyone watching. I will start by addressing your first argument, which I believe to be fundamentally fallacious. "1. If objective moral facts exist, then God exists. " This is a Non-Sequitor. Objective Morality that is delivered to us in the form of statements does not imply that a God exists. These statements do not imply a "supreme being". "morality is prescriptive and is expressed to us in the form of statements such as "Do not lie" and "Do not murder. " These statements carry with them a degree of incumbency – that is to say, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. " An intelligence that does not necessarily have to be of the supreme nature. "This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Therefore, moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. " You say that a theory must have less Ad Hocness, but your first premise is built on assumptions and Ad-hockery. You operate on the assumption that these moral commands come from a Supreme Being that communicates to us through words, rather than a human source. You operate under the assumption that the one making these commands must be a competent authority for these commands to be binding to us. You operate under the assumption that these commands ARE binding to us. You operate under the assumption that if there is objective morality, God is the only explanation. Objective morality does not imply that God exists. Only in the largest stretch of semantics can this be made to be true. "2. Objective moral fac(t)s exist. " If objective morality does exist, your arguments are not convincing in the slightest. You said that "By "objective," I refer to the state of being true regardless of human opinion. ", yet your first support for premise 2 is based on human opinion. . "1) The objectivity of morality is the best explanation for our everyday experience. The objectivity of morality accords with pre-existing beliefs regarding morality. " Beliefs fall within human opinion. Your first support for premise 2 is irrelevant, as it is an entirely subjective argument. Your second support for premise 2 also falls within this category. "2) The objectivity of morality allows for moral judgments We commonly condemn people or actions as being immoral or praiseworthy. But, if morality is nothing more than one's mere opinion, then it makes no sense condemning or praising someone for their opinion, for the opinion of the serial killer is just as valid as the charity worker's. " This isn't an argument for objective morality, this just possibly shows that moral judgments are based on the assumption that there is an objective morality. "3) The objectivity of morality allows for moral progress " The practicality or the perceived positive effects of belief is not an indicator of whether or not morality is objective. This is not a proof for objective morality. Your third argument is equally fallacious, and makes the same mistakes that your first one does, which is using human subjective opinion in itself as proof of objective morality. At the same time, you add more Ad-Hoc assumptions to support your argument. I'd also like to note that humanism in itself is not an objective moral philosophy, it is a human centric moral philosophy, which is fundamentally subjective by nature. Objectively, morality only exists as a human construct. It is a memeplex.