William Lane Craig's Moral argument is flawed.

FormulationMy Claim: Con has yet to prove that this analogy is correct in saying that a God implies objective morality. Con's Claim: 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)Morality is subjective. My point was not how it was structured, it's just that opinion cannot be objective, no matter what any supernatural being says. A supernatural being cannot do the impossible. It cannot make opinion objective. Moral conflict does not imply a lack of moral truth My 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. Con's Claim: 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. That's exactly my point. One person may have moral intentions, but that doesn't make it so. I could have moral intentions in murdering innocent people, but that doesn't make it moral. It is opinion as to whether it is moral or immoral, just like it's opinion as to whether something is beautiful or ugly. Misunderstanding the argument My 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. Con's claim: 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? First I'll respond to the second paragraph. Just because you have a being that cannot lie saying that X is moral, that does not make it so, for that would imply that you could prove or disprove statements like 'Eating wheat is immoral'. An opinion is not true or false and therefore, it would not change anything if these statements of what is moral and what is immoral were coming from a being that cannot lie. As for the correction, yes, I'll agree with it, I was strawmanning that argument. Is it impossible for objective moral values to exist? My 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? Con's Claim: There is no operative difference between saying 'Objective moraltiy cannot exist' and 'Objective morality is impossible'. I agree with what Con has said, however, he hasn't really responded to the arguments I made in my claim/Concluding StatementI'd say that I have definitely met my burden of proof. I've said that whatever is moral or immoral is simply opinion because you have absolutely no way of proving or disproving these statements. I've stated that objective morality cannot exist/ is impossible because opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Thus, objective morality cannot exist, even if a supernatural being is involved. This invalidates both premises of William Lane Craig's argument, making the conclusion false and the whole argument faulty.