Morality is given by the biblical God

I do think its a bit unfair to that I get an additional rebuttal, therefore I will try to make this rather brief. CON asserts that "Evidence for the 'god' is inconclusive", yet CON fails to actually refute my argument for a God. Couldn't this argument be considered evidence? CON tries to simply hand-wave my entire argument by stating that the God conclusion is "bordering on impossible" and based merely on my "assumption or an opinion", yet no where in my entire argument do I merely state my opinion. I give reasons for each of my premises, and my conclusion logically follows from those premises. Objective Morality:CON seems to think that if there were objective moral values, we would be able to point out exactly which of those values are good, and which are bad. Ironically, I have pointed out specific values that humans generally agree on. We generally agree that things like murder and rape are bad, and things like selflessness and equality are good. So it seems to me that we can in fact point to certain things that are morally good and those that are morally bad. Furthermore, the fact that we disagree on some of these things does absolutely nothing to invalidate my argument. I tried to show an anology to how scientists disagree on the nature of the Universe, yet that doesn't mean we conclude that the Universe is a subjective illusion that only exists in the subjective minds of its observers. CON tries to show that this analogy fails by saying that "The nature of something and our assumption about what that nature is are different things", but that is exactly my point. Just because we have opinions about what the nature of something is, and we sometimes come to slightly different conclusions, doesn't mean we can make a conclusion about the actual nature of that thing. This hold true for the nature of morality as well. Our fallible perception of moral values doesn't mean those moral values are simply illusions and only exist in the mind of creatures. The fact that we hold each other to a certain standard in which we generally agree on and hold each other to is evidence to an objective set of moral values in which we are all appealing to. CON wants to deny an intuitive knowledge of an objective morality by giving obscure reasons like "we must first have an opinion on it" and emotions are in play, but I hardly see how this effects my argument. Lastly, CON finishes the rebuttal by trying to show that Willaim Lane Craig himself points out a flaw in the moral argument similar to the one I've presented. The quote CON produces however is not an admission by Craig of a flaw in the argument, rather it is a warning to anyone defending the argument that knowing the difference between epistemology and ontology is crucial. He warns people of this because if they do not understand the difference, they will make the very mistake that CON has done in his argument which is to think that because evolution is the way in which we come to know moral values, we therefore must conclude that they are not objective. Craig is pleading with people not to make this mistake. He warns us that the question of moral ontology is a different question altogether and whether evolution or any other natural process plays a part in how we come to know it makes not the slightest bit of difference. CON tries to show Craig as being wrong about this by questioning Craig's statement that "God's commands constitute our moral duties", however CON fails to realize that Craig is not offering God's commands as the grounds for moral objectivity. As Craig says right before the quote CON brought forth:“By saying [that objective moral duties are constituted by God's commands], is not one already providing an argument for Revealed Theology and thus making an argument for moral epistemology?” So saying will, indeed, imply that one of the ways we could come to know our moral duties is via a (scriptural) revelation of God’s commands. But that isn’t to say that the only way of coming to know our moral duties is through such a means." [1]When Craig says that God's commands 'constitute' our moral duties, he is saying that we may come to know objective moral duties through his commands which are revealed to us in the Christian Bible. This therefore, is an epistemology. The reason Craig points out that this claim is an ontological one is because if the nature of morals are indeed objective, and they are grounded by God, then God's commands necessarily must consist of those moral values. CON simply doesn't understand Craigs point.CON, I thank you very much for such a great debate. I hope to debate you again sometime, possibly on a different subject. SOURCES:(1)http://www.reasonablefaith.org...