I am a conceptualist who does not believe in objective existence. The burden of proof would be on Craig to prove objective existence. Without this, his whole argument of objective morality falls apart. This is why he needs to debate a good philosopher who would take him to task on his foundational assumptions.


There is no such thing as objective morality, because any idea is subjective. Abstract ideas do not and cannot exist objectively.


It is anthropocentric. Imagine a more intelligent alien life-form comes to earth and sees a table. They have somehow not invented tables. This table is not a table to them. In other words, a table only has properties that make it a table in humanity. These consensus agreed properties are human derived properties, even if there may be common properties between concrete items - ie tableness. Without humans existing on earth, for example, tables would not exist. Thus the label of 'table' is a result of 'subjectively human' evolution.


It is also the case, then, that the range of all possible entities also exist objectively, even if they don't exist materially. For example, a 'forqwibllex' is fork with a bent handle and a button on the end. This did not exist before now, either objectively or subjectively. Now it does - have I created it objectively? This is what happens whenever humans make up a label for anything that they assign function etc.


Also, things that other animals use that don't even have names, but assigned 'mental labels' for want of better words, must also exist objectively under Craig's logic. For example, the backrubby bit of bark that a family of sloths scratch their backs on a particular tree exists materially. They have no language, so it has no label (i argue abstracts are a function of language). Yet even though it only has properties to a sloth, and not to any other animal, objectivists would claim it must exist objectively.


Furthermore, there are items that have multiple abstract properties - how does that work? A table to me might well be a territory marker to the school cat. Which is it - do both abstracts exist?


Where do these abstracts exist? Problem of universals...


What happens when we argue over the porperties of an object / family of objects. I say a 'hero' has properties x, you disagree and say heroes have properties y. Who is right, and which abstract objectively exists?

In my opinion, their arguments can't even get to first base. People need to stop arguing about torturing babies, and start arguing whether the words 'objective morality' are coherent or not.