No, I am not referring to Moreland's Universals.

First I'll define a couple terms I’m using. An “ought-statement” is a statement that makes a claim of what ought to be rather than making a claim of what is, e.g. “people should not steal.” In the context being used here, “authority” is the power to make ought-statements true (as by a command), thereby being a specific type of ought-to-be-obeyed aspect. For example, suppose an Admiral has authority over the entire fleet and orders the Captain to turn his ship South. The statement “the Captain ought to turn the ship South” becomes true, and the Captain ought to obey the Admiral.

Whoever or whatever it is that says how we ought to behave, the basis of objective morality must possess the following characteristics:

1. Supremely transcendent authority. It is one thing to merely say what people should do, but the basis of morality must be authoritative in that people really ought to obey it. Suppose for instance a Nazi commands a subordinate to kill Jews. Is it the case that the subordinate ought to obey the Nazi? No, the subordinate ought to obey the dictates of morality instead, because the dictates of objective morality ought to be obeyed over the orders of any human. The basis of morality must transcend the authority of other people’s behavioral commands if its ought-statements are to be objectively truthful. This would include, for instance, transcending the authority of dictators who would order torture and genocide. Otherwise people ought to obey the dictator instead of morality. So the basis of objective morality not only says how we ought to behave but also does so with supremely transcendent authority (transcending e.g. Hitler’s authority).
2. Absolute. Goes along with the objective nature of morality. The basis of morality is not relative but absolute; both its existence and its moral truths are stone-cold facts and are independent of any arbitrary moral standards we humans might create. Additionally, as the supreme authority its existence and statements of how we ought to behave are completely unrestrained by any other would-be authorities (as governments). Try as they might have, the Nazis could not budge the fact that their anti-Semitism was immoral.
3. Universally binding. Again, goes along with the nature of objective morality. The entity's authority must be universally binding in that it applies to everyone (e.g. all peoples in all governments) regardless of who, when, and where we are and regardless of what any human thinks, feels, and believes.
4. Infallibly authoritative. The basis of morality also cannot be mistaken on what is morally right (else it would not be the basis of morality when it says what is moral), so it says how we ought to behave with infallible moral authority.

Objective morality implies the existence of some transcendent, absolute, universally binding entity with infallible and supreme moral authority in saying how we ought to behave such that everyone ought to always obey it. This entity certainly sounds like some type of God, even if it is not the God of traditional monotheism.

New to the forum, but I have listened to the debate some time ago. I enjoy Craigs talks but I found him lumbering in a few points. While he pressed Antony a couple of times on her subjective view points I was hoping to see him press her more on the topic. Her subjective view of morality and values were weak in my opinion. The problem for this argument is that no one is under any obligation to following her views or any other views. She may find value in people but what about the next person? She had no answer for it and I thought she should have been pressed more. I remember Charles Manson stating that if there is no God then he is free to do whatever he chooses to fulfill his desires on any given day which is exactly what he did. Manson started with torturing small animals but soon got bored and began looking for bigger acts to meet his needs. Antony may say that it's wrong because it caused someone suffering but how does this fit into a naturalistic worldview where survival of the fittest is what got her where she is anyway? I don't see these statements agreeing with eachother.

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God’s own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God’s moral nature is what Plato called the “Good.” He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.

Moreover, God’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

If natural selection were true, pain and suffering would often be a neccessary consequence. So how is it that this suffering is allowable for the progress of evolution and at the same time somehow define moral boundaries? This seems to me a systemic contradiction.