Far be it from me to dignify any of Craig's arguments with a response, but what irritates me is the way theists use these arguments without any regard for the philosophical implications.
The phrase "objective morals" means morals independent of any conscious entity's will, desires or opinions. If god exists and morality comes from him, then it is, by definition, subjective. As a matter of fact, in that case, the whole reality would be subjective and the word "objective" would lose all meaning. But once this argument is made - often in the form of Euthyphro Dilemma - they scramble for explanations like "but god is objectively morally good by his very nature" - forgetting that if morality is established as a standard independent of god then the existence of god becomes irrelevant to existence of objective morality. If they do remember that, then their position becomes even weirder. So, basically, Craig's moral argument is a complicated game of moving the goalposts with no regard for what morality actually means or what actual existence objective moral values would require.
Now, here's something I find even more irritating - a lot of atheists seem to accept that god is required for objective moral values. They attack premise 2 - question whether objective moral values do exist while professing belief in the social contract theory - while disregarding premise 1. I'd expect atheists to actually consider the premises required for objective morality to exist and use that as a basis to judge whether or not it does or could rather than simply accepting the theistic view that god is required for it.
The phrase "objective morals" means morals independent of any conscious entity's will, desires or opinions. If god exists and morality comes from him, then it is, by definition, subjective. As a matter of fact, in that case, the whole reality would be subjective and the word "objective" would lose all meaning. But once this argument is made - often in the form of Euthyphro Dilemma - they scramble for explanations like "but god is objectively morally good by his very nature" - forgetting that if morality is established as a standard independent of god then the existence of god becomes irrelevant to existence of objective morality. If they do remember that, then their position becomes even weirder. So, basically, Craig's moral argument is a complicated game of moving the goalposts with no regard for what morality actually means or what actual existence objective moral values would require.
Now, here's something I find even more irritating - a lot of atheists seem to accept that god is required for objective moral values. They attack premise 2 - question whether objective moral values do exist while professing belief in the social contract theory - while disregarding premise 1. I'd expect atheists to actually consider the premises required for objective morality to exist and use that as a basis to judge whether or not it does or could rather than simply accepting the theistic view that god is required for it.
