William Lane Craig's Moral argument is flawed.

Ave.FormulationPro's Claim: Con has yet to prove that this analogy is correct in saying that a God implies objective morality.This part of my argument was meant to show that Dr. Craig's formulation was not invalid, or any other word Pro gave to it in his opening argument. After correcting Pro, he decided to attack the P implies Q part of the moral argument. I'm not exactly sure why he brought up in this section of the debate.An objective moral prescriber is necessary for objective moral prescriptions, and an objective moral standard is necessary for objective moral values. God is a maximally great being, and since it's intuitively greater to be the standard of moral perfection rather than exemplify it, then it follows that God would be the moral standard were he to exist, which makes him uniquely qualified in issuing commands. Therefore, God is the most plausible and least arbitrary standard, necessary for moral reality. (Apeiron)Moral conflict does not imply a lack of moral truthPro's Claim: My point was that no matter what opinion somebody has on morality, you cannot prove them wrong, which makes what is moral and what is immoral opinion. Facts are objective, because you can prove them to be right. Con has yet to prove that morality is objective and not subjective by proving a statement like 'Murder is immoral' to be correct or incorrect.Here, Pro attempts to seperate moral judgements from reality. It's all just a matter of opinion on his view. This view cannot be true, as there are objective facts to be known about right and wrong.If somebody argues that witchcraft is immoral and that we should burn witches, we can prove that their opinion is wrong using objective facts. We can use our modern day scientific knowledge to show that witchcraft does not exist. We can also use scientific data to show that burning people alive as punishment might not be a great idea.The dichtonomy that Pro sets up between moral values and objective facts is not true, because we can concieve of situations where moral values are subject to objective fact.Do objective moral values and duties exist?Pro's Claim: This argument put forward by Con is very weak. Since people's opinions on morality differ, what A does to P that A considers moral may be considered immoral by P. Making bacon sandwiches for a Muslim, for example. Morals do exist, but they're subjective as they're opinions. Two people may agree on what is moral, but that doesn't make morality objective as morality is just an opinion. Just because some people share an opinion, it doesn't mean that the opinion is objective, it is still subjective, as you cannot prove or disprove it.Pro misunderstands the point of the argument I presented in the last round of the debate. Yes, a person could consider an action done to another person to be moral, and another person could consider it to be immoral. The premise of the argument simply states that the action has moral content. In other words, it can be thought of as being moral or immoral, and not amoral. When Pro argues that people can think of that actions morality in different ways, all he does is affirm the premise to be true, not refute it. Far from being a rebuttal of the first premise, Pro has unknowingly supported it.Consider Pro's bacon analogy and how it would fit in my argument.'For every action (givng bacon to a Muslim) affecting a person (Muslim), if giving bacon to a Muslim has moral content, then giving bacon to a Muslim cannot be amoral.'In the latter part of his rebuttal, Pro only erects a straw man argument. I have not argued that objective moral values exist because some people share the same opinion on a moral issue. I will not defend my position against a straw man.Misunderstanding the argumentPro's Claim: How is it decided what is moral and what is immoral? That's like saying that God cannot have any bad opinions. What makes something moral or immoral? Why is causing pain bad? Why is giving someone a gift good? The statement 'God is incapable of ordering us to do anything that is not moral' is faulty, as what is moral and immoral is just opinion.Pro doesn't repond to half of what I said in the last round. I pointed out that punishment has absolutely nothing to do with god being a sound moral ontology. He didn't get back to me on this correction. Does he agree with my correction? Does he disagree with it? Simply ignoring half of my argument isn't very productive.Right and wrong is not a matter of opinion if you are the objective basis of morality. Imagine a being that knows everything there is to know about neuroscience. Furthermore, it is incapable of lying about neuroscientific truths. This being could determine what is objectively true about neuroscience and what is objectively false, because it knows everything about the subject, and cannot lie. Why would it be different with a being that knows everything about morality, and cannot lie?Is it impossible for objective moral values to exist?Pro's Claim: No, I'd claim that objective morality cannot exist, as an opinion cannot be objective, it is subjective. You cannot prove anyone's view of morality or immorality wrong. How could you?There is no operative difference between saying 'Objective moraltiy cannot exist' and 'Objective morality is impossible'.Concluding StatementPro attempts to make himself look more moderate by changing words around. However, his own statements show that he believes objective morality is impossible. As I said earlier, this is a very bold claim, and it is much different than saying there is no reason to believe objective morality exists.Pro has given us no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with Dr. Craig's formulation. I showed that Dr. Craig's formulation was in a logical Modus tollens form. Pro never responded to this correction.I have also showed that moral values must correspond to reality, because we can concieve of moral values that are subject to objective facts about reality.In the last round, I gave an argument for why objective moral values and duties exist. Pro responded to this with the tired line that 'people can have different opinions on that action'. As I showed earlier, all this statement did was reinforce the premise of my argument rather than tear it down.I demonstrated that punishment from god has nothing to do with his ontology. Pro entirely ignored this in his latest round.Al things considered, Pro has not upheld his burden of proof.Vale.