William Lane Craig's Moral argument is flawed.

Ave.FormulationPro's Claim: My first problem comes at the first premise, as it's a bit random. I don't see how a supernatural being os relevant to objective morality, It's not incorrect, it's just odd.There is nothing strange or random about Dr. Craig's formulation. It's a standard Modus tollens formulation. Logically, it states that if P implies Q, and not Q, therefore not P. Here's an example of what Modus tollens looks like in an argument.Without hydrogen and oxygen, water could not exist. Water does exist. Therefore, hydrogen and oxygen exist.Moral conflict does not imply a lack of moral truthPro's Claim: As even when held by a supernatural being, can one opinion be more valid than another? What is morally good or morally bad is simply opinion. When somebody says that murder is morally good, you cannot disprove them or prove them to be correct. That is why objective morality cannot exist, because no opinion can be more valid than anotherPro's logic can be used to undermine any truth at all. If I say that voodoo practices are justified by physics, and Victor Stenger tells me otherwise, there must not be any truths to be known about physics! Our beliefs about physics are merely cultural and biological. A person in Africa has a different idea of physics than I do. Physics that work America don't have to work in Brazil. This is insane, but it's relativism taken to its logical consequences.Do objective moral values and duties exist?Pro's Claim: The second premise is where I have my big problem. This is a baseless assertion. When William Lane Craig uses this argument, he simply asserts that they exist, and that 'deep down, we all know it'. I don't find this to be a very convincing argument at all. Pro argues that we have no reason to believe in the second premise of the argument, so the entire argument must be unjustified. However, we have good reasons to believe that objective moral values and duties exist. 1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral 2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily 3) Some objective moral knowledge exists Therefore, 4) Moral truths exist.Misunderstanding the argumentPro's Claim: even when there's a supernatural being who will punish you for not doing what he thinks is morally good, that still doesn't make them objective, just like it wouldn't make the statement 'Icecream is cool' true even if there were a supernatural being who would punish you for not thinking this.Pro shows that he does understanding the ontology of objective moraity with god. God is not capable of giving us objective moral values simply because he can punish us if we don't follow them. In fact, the moral argument has nothing to do with being punished by god for not following the moral values he prescribes to us. Pro is only erecting a straw man argument here.The reason why god can provide us with objective morality is because he is a perfect and maximally great being, and he is incapable of ordering us to do anything that is not moral. It has nothing at all to do with punishment, for any being can punish any other being for performing an action that is not actually immoral.Is it impossible for objective moral values to exist?Pro's Claim: I'd actually argue that objective morality cannot exist.Here, Pro makes a very bold claim that we should pay attention to. Pro doesn't believe that objective moral values are unlikely to exist. He actually believes it is impossible for them to exist. This is a bold claim, and I expect a lot of justification for such a belief.Concluding StatementI have presented two major rebuttals against Pro:1) Moral conflict does not imply a lack of moral truth.2) Objective moral values and duties exist.I have also presented three minor rebuttals against Pro:1) Dr. Craig's formulation is perfectly valid and normal in logic.2) Punishment has nothing to do with the ontology of morality with god.3) Pro makes a bold claim when he argues that objective morality cannot exist. This should be considered when the audience votes, because he has set very high standards of proof for himselfVale.