God is the Best Explanation for Morality

My thanks to CA for his response.Premise 1 Recall that P1 advances the claim that "If objective moral facts exist. then God exists." This is a conditional claim, it states that if there are objective moral facts, then God serves as their explanation. Given this, CA's first argument against P1 fails. Sure, one may hold that there are in fact no objective moral facts, but that's completely beside the point, which is that if they do in fact exist, then God is their explanation. So this is just a red herring. It's got nothing to do with P1, since it expresses a conditional truth. In his own words, his second argument is as follows; "God is Ad-Hoc in the sense that your support for an objective morality is something that isn't known to exist." The claim seems to be that because the conclusion is something whose existence is unsupported, that therefore the conclusion is improbable. But this fails at a very basic level to understand the whole point of an argument, in which premises function as evidence for the conclusion. The very point of the first two premises are to provide evidence for the conclusion. To reject the conclusion as CA has did is ignore the fact that I provided arguments for P1 (Commands entail a commander), that he has failed to adequately respond to. I do not think that God is the best explanation for why it rains, or anything akin to a God-of-the-gaps argument. The implied comparision here breaks down, because the former is concerned with mechanistic processes which can be further explained, whereas the moral argument deals with the ultimate ground of morality. He then argues that "If you admit that there are other explanations for objective morality, then your whole argument falls apart."Not at all! Simply because there are competing explanations to a position doesn't mean that any one explanation can't be correct. If you admit that there are other explanations for objective morality, then your whole argument falls apart, as your argument is stated in a way to where objective morality can not exist without god. Suppose that one day, I come home to discover that my television is stolen. Furthermore, I discover that a wallet in the ground which contains the driver's license of Bob, and suppose further that upon checking the records, Bob has been twice convicted of grand larceny. From this I craft a logical argument that Bob probably stole my television. Now, it's possible that the TV just mysteriously vanished, that the mailman stole it, that the license and records were planted, etc... But simply because other explanations are possible doesn't mean that my explanation can't be true or that it can't be the best.The same with theistic morality. Yes, there may be competing explanations as to the grounding of morality, but that does not in any way imply that my argument fails. Remember once again that the proposition being debated is that God is the best explanation of morality.Premise 2I am not arguing that "if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on the skeptic." That's another strawman of my position. I wrote earlier that, "Also of consideration in determining the burden of proof is who advances the more plausible claim. Suppose I claim that the external world exists. The burden of proof is not on me to prove this, even though I may have made the claim. Rather, it's on the skeptic who wishes to deny this (By positing that we are, say, brains in a vat) who shoulders the burden of proof." Applied to the second premise, the burden of proof is on CA because his position lacks plausibility, for it entails that statements such as "Murder is wrong," "Slavery is wrong," "Charity work is good," etc.... are neither true or false. At any rate, even supposing that I bear the burden of proof, I have advanced claims for my position. CA has not replied to my arguments that human experience, though subjective, is an prima facie accurate guide to how reality is. Human Dignity and EqualityCA states that he never claimed that people are not equal and not possess dignity. Very well, although I never claimed he did. What remains to be answereed however, is whether or not he actually does believe it. If he does, then he owes us an explanation as to why human beings are equal and have dignity. If not, then he owes us an explanation as to why we are not equal and have no dignity, not to mention the fact that by affirming such an idea (If he does), he cannot complain against slavery, sex-trafficing, the Holocaust, etc... which is surely implausible.Now, my argument was human equality and dignity was that it is self-evident. It is the skeptic who owes an us explanation, for the skeptic is advancing the more implausible claim. The person who claims that human beings are equal and have dignity no more shoulders the burden of proof than the person who claims that the external world exists.On the "Best Explanation"CA has finally offered a competing moral theory to content with the title of "best explanation." He proposes that moral relativism is a better explanation in that it satisfies the criteria better than theism. But does it?Explanatory power: Relativism does not explain moral progress, moral judgments or moral communication. It may explain why cultures hold different moral views, but theism offers a better explanation, for it affirms the reality of moral progress in cultural views of morality. Under relativism, progess is impossible, since there is no standard.Plausibility: Nothing much to respond to. CA only asserted that it was more plausible without justifying it.Less Ad-Hoc: See next response.Accord with Already Accepted Beliefs: Relativism does not satisfy this criteria adequately, for it requires us to many commonsense beliefs, such as "Humans have equal diginity," "The Holocaust was wrong," "Torturing babies for fun is wrong." Nor does it accord with our beliefs in moral progress. This, in turn, makes relatiism more ad hoc, since it does not explain the data, but rather explains it away.