Dear Dr. Craig, I am a former Christian in large part because apologetics, from my perspective, has failed to provide adequate explanations

to the objections commonly raised against theism, and especially Christianity in particular.

For this submission, I would like to focus on the concept of morality.

You have argued at length that objective morality proves the existence of God,

and by extension that humanity's moral obligations derive exclusively from the commands of this good and loving God.

Your position also entails that God's commands must be consistent with his allegedly loving nature.

From my perspective, all of this is logically invalid for two reasons.

Firstly, there demonstrably is no such thing as objective morality.

Morality is an abstract concept produced by the mind. It has no real-world

existence, no more than beauty or value, which are widely and correctly understood as subjective in nature.

Merriam-Webster defines a fact as something that has actual existence and an opinion as a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.

Moral judgments are opinions and are entirely subjective. They are not objective facts.

If they were, you could prove them to be true,

using logic or empiricism.

But you know no one can do this.

You can't prove, for example, that homosexuality is immoral

any more than you can prove that blue is the best color,

or that car is ugly, or that movie was awful.

These are all unprovable opinions.

Secondly, you attempt to make morality objective by

one, artificially inserting God into the equation, and,

2, defining him as the absolute and objective moral good. Such a move only serves to show

...