Sam breaks it down so clearly, my all time fav🥰

I watched the full debate (but not the Q & A part) in my early morning insomnia and I felt that they petty much talked past each other. Craig advanced two theses: 1) IF God (=a holy being worthy of worship) exists, then the commands of God provide a sound ground for objective moral values, and 2) IF God doesn’t exist there is no sound ground for objective moral values at all. Harris’ response was that the God of the Bible and historical church commands much evil and allows much more. (He gives a very poignant statement of the traditional problem of evil.) Craig rightly (in my opinion) claims that is irrelevant to his first thesis. In reaction to his second thesis, Harris proposes “the well-being of conscious beings” as the proper ground for objective moral values. Craig claims this is to redefine moral value as something that it is not.

Craig says that both he and Harris reject the view that morality exists on its own—like a Platonic ideal.