To apply the argument, you'd need someone to accept premise 1. Otherwise, you'd need to prove there are no other rational reasons to believe in God.
Premise 5 seems to imply there are other rational reasons to believe in objective morality? You never claimed that, and you'd have to for the argument. But again, you'd need someone to accept that, otherwise you'd have to prove other rational reasons exist.
So if someone didn't accept premise 1 and the updated premise 5, you'd have to establish what constitutes rational vs irrational reasons to believe in something, which would be a huge mess.
You also need people to accept the principle of parsimony.
Obviously, they aren't going to agree with principle 6. So you'd need to prove that.
---
Also, the way you wrote premise 2 of the theist argument, God could exist without objective morals. But objective morals can't exist without God. If you think that's what they believe, then they definitely aren't buying into premise 1, 5, and 6.
Premise 5 seems to imply there are other rational reasons to believe in objective morality? You never claimed that, and you'd have to for the argument. But again, you'd need someone to accept that, otherwise you'd have to prove other rational reasons exist.
So if someone didn't accept premise 1 and the updated premise 5, you'd have to establish what constitutes rational vs irrational reasons to believe in something, which would be a huge mess.
You also need people to accept the principle of parsimony.
Obviously, they aren't going to agree with principle 6. So you'd need to prove that.
---
Also, the way you wrote premise 2 of the theist argument, God could exist without objective morals. But objective morals can't exist without God. If you think that's what they believe, then they definitely aren't buying into premise 1, 5, and 6.
