No, you misunderstand Craig. Craig is a Divine Command Theorist.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 20th, 2018, 6:48 pmThere seems to be an obvious flaw in Craig's argument. He calls objective morality one which is rooted in people's hearts, in other words, one which is innate to agency, to consciousness. By definition, that will make such morality subjective, not objective. In order for it being objective, it would have to come from an external source and be completely independent of the subjects. Craig might want to say that this is exactly what happened at the moment of creation, when morality was implanted in human beings. But there's no logical argument of empirical demonstration that Craig can offer in support of that view, while the problem of morality not being objective remains unsolved.
His argument is that moral values are real objective things that are determined by God. What Craig means when he says that moral values and duties are objective, is that in any moral situation you happen to find yourself there is, in fact, a right thing to do and there is, in fact, a bad or wrong thing to do. He does not say that this is always easy for us to discern; some situations present moral questions (dilemmas) for us that are tremendously complex and difficult to resolve. In other words it is important not to confuse epistemology ( which is how we come to know moral values and duties) with ontology ( which is the objective reality of moral values and duties which are determined by God). Craig would also say that because moral values and duties are objective, it does not mean in consequence, that we are always prevented from mis-applying them. That is, we can do the wrong thing; this happen because despite the fact that moral values and duties are objective, we human beings can and do apply them ( i.e. moral values and duties) subjectively regardless. This is what Craig would call "Sin".