You have either misunderstood what I've been saying or you are misrepresenting it (in which case this is a strawman).
I've already explained this, and I've referred you to my explanation multiple times:
Begging the question is an informal fallacy in which the content of the conclusion is assumed, either directly or indirectly, in the premises of an argument. By
defining 'objective moral values' in the way that you have, your argument begs the question for a deity.
Given that it is an informal fallacy, I have no idea why you're going on about valid logical form.
Dr. Craig did not formulate the moral argument to read as follows:
1. If God does not exist, then moral values and duties that come from God do not exist.
2. Moral values and duties that come from God exist.
3. Therefore, God exists
In fact, the argument in question is formulated as:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists
Notice in premise (1) the word objective simply means independent of human opinion. It does not mean "from God".
Even if one, such as myself, believes that objective morality finds its locus in God, my belief is immaterial so long as the word objective in premise (1) is defined as "independent of human opinion".
In fact sir, one thing you have failed to realize is that most atheistic philosophers AGREE with premise (1). They recognize that in the absence of God, there is no good basis for grounding morality objectively in the sense of it being "independent of subjective human opinion".
Again sir, let me reiterate in plain terms, one can hold to any number of views as to where morality comes from, their belief has no bearing whatsoever on the argument
SO LONG AS THEY DEFINE THE WORD "OBJECTIVE"
IN PREMISE (1) to simply mean "independent of human opinion", no charge can be brought against the argument for question begging.
When presenting the argument, I have always used this definition in defining the word objective IN RELATION TO THE ARGUMENT.
I have stated several times, as you quoted me as having said, that I believe the existence of objective moral values and duties are best explained by God, but I have given reasons as to why I think this.
Notice also, Dr. Craig gives reasons why premise (1) is more plausibly true than its contradictory and the reasons are primarily the same reasons that atheists themselves agree with premise (1).
If Dr. Craig presents an argument in which the first premise is agreed upon by the person to whom the argument is presented, then that is sufficient. That is all that is needed.
If you disagree with premise (1) after being supplied with various reasons why it is true, then you have to come up with some type of response or argument.
Since you disagree with (1) and have already been demonstrated why premise (1) is not question begging, and that the majority of atheistic philosophers agree with premise (1), the burden is now on you to come up with some sort of good reason as to why we should not hold (1) to be more plausibly true than its contradictory.
Would you like me to furnish you with some objections from contemporary philosophers on premise (1)? I do not know that there will be many, but I may be able to dig some up.
I can demonstrate that my father is my father. Can you demonstrate how you have the knowledge you claim to have?
You can't if the person to whom you are seeking to demonstrate this to is unwilling to believe you.
For example, you could give me a picture of a man who you claim is your father. I could say well, he resembles you certainly, but maybe he is just a stranger who happens to look like an older version of you.
Or you could even have him meet me and there while we were face to face, he could say: "I am his father Elioenai26, please believe that I am." I could say, well, I hear you sir, but I tend not to take people at their word merely, but rather would like some type of "empirical" evidence that would prove beyond all doubt that you are his father.
He then could furnish me a copy of your birth certificate with his name and your name on it. I could then say, well sir, I respect that, but clearly this is a copy and is more than likely a forgery. Copies are ok, but the actual certificate would be even better!
He could then go digging for it in his old pile of paperwork and voila! Birth certificate, all original. He could hand it to me and say: "SEE I AM HIS FATHER!" I could say, well, sir, I indeed do respect your vigor and your zeal in proclaiming that you are his father, but since I was not there to actually see you sign this certificate, I cannot trust it.
***********
I hope you and everyone else reading this gets my point.
You can present all the evidence you want that the man whom you call "father" is your father. If I am (for whatever reason) unwilling to accept it, then I can dismiss it on the grounds that it does not meet my expectation criteria for evidence. I can set the bar SOOOOO HIGH that virtually anything offered will simply be explained away....
This is what some dishonest atheists do when presented with evidence of God. I hope you are not one of them.