God is the Best Explanation for Morality

Premise 1 [1]These commands you speak of are clearly non-existent, so your point is completely moot. There is no God going around telling people to not kill or steal. Only people do this. [2]God is Ad-Hoc in the sense that your support for an objective morality is something that isn't known to exist. It is Ad-Hoc. If you think that God is the best explanation for morality, I suppose you also think that God is the best explanation for why it rains, or why we tend to leave stools some time after we eat. It isn't the best explanation at all, especially when you choose to define it in a way that is non-falsifiable, not known to exist, and not possible to know. You may have other ideas as to how objective morality exists, but I am not making a straw man when it comes to your argument in this debate. 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. Your position is that god is the best explanation of morality, and that God is evident because there is objective morality.. Something which you have not demonstrated. You are making a lot of assertions, but haven't proven anything whatsoever. Premise 2 Your first argument for Premise 2 is very clearly what I said it was. You are basically saying that if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on the skeptic. This is patently absurd, and shows that you do not have an understanding of what the burden of proof is. I do not have to make a counter claim to refute your position, I only have to demonstrate that the rationale behind your position is absurd. What you are describing is a straight out of the book appeal to ignorance. Challenges to the Human Dignity and Equality Argument I never made the assertion that people are not equal and do not have dignity. Such an assertion is unnecessary. I am however, pointing out that your evidence is not supportive of this position at all. Like I said, the only thing it shows is the United Nation's position on the matter. Your thesis is absurd. Just because something explains something doesn't mean that it isn't a baseless assertion. This is another Ad-hoc fallacy, as the theistic position itself hasn't been proven. On the Best Explanation Sure then, I'll give you a better explanation. Morality is a human construct, and can not possibly be objective. Allow me to explain how this better fits your own criteria than the position you hold. ~Explanatory Power~ The idea that morality is a human construct better explains why morality is culture specific and has changed so much over the course of history. ~Plausibility~ The idea that morality is a human construct is very plausible. It is infinitely more plausible to believe this than to believe that morality was dictated to us by a divine being. ~Less Ad-Hoc~ There is nothing Ad-Hoc about the idea that morality is a human construct, as this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on observation. Belief in an objective morality that was given to us by God falls so far outside of our epistemological limitations, that it is silly to deny that it doesn't rely on Ad-Hoc assumptions. ~Accord With Already Accepted Beliefs~ Based on things which are in our realm of knowing, the idea that morality is a human construct falls perfectly within what we know. ~Comparative Superiority~ The position that morality is a human construct has better explanatory power, is more plausible, less Ad-Hoc, and is in accord with already accepted beliefs.