William Lane Craig's Moral argument is flawed.

1My 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.Con's Claim: 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.Con has yet to prove that this analogy is correct in saying that a God implies objective morality. 2My 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 another.Con's Claim: Pro'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.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.3My 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.Con's Claim: 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 amoral2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily3) Some objective moral knowledge existsTherefore, 4) Moral truths exist.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.4 My 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.Con's Claim: 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. 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.5 My Claim: I'd actually argue that objective morality cannot exist.Con's Claim: 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.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?Conclusion - The first premise is faulty, as objective morality cannot exist even if there's a God.- The second premise is faulty, as objective morality cannot exist.-The conclusion is wrong, as none of the premises are true.Also, I do not consider logic or facts to be subjective, I only consider opinions to be subjective.