William Lane Craig was right!

I think the reason Craig 'stacked the deck' as you put it is because Harris wasn't arguing against the existence of an objective morality, consider it sneaky if you will.

I haven't read Harris' book yet, it is sitting in my reading stack, but I think he would do better to not call his version of morality 'objective'. As best as I can tell, the moral assumption is to maximise happiness and minimise suffering and there are actions and states which are objectively contrary to this goal. It doesn't matter if every human alive agrees with these moral goals, it doesn't make them objective. Subjective multiplied by 6 billion does not equal objective.

But that isn't what Craig, or most Christians mean when they say 'objective morality' because at the end of the day Harris' position is subjective, it relies on a subjective view on what the moral goals should be.

However, I'm not clear on what Christians actually mean when they say 'objective morality' because whatever God's morality is it ultimately depends on his goals and thus we end up with the same structure as the Harris approach, some actions and states are objectively contrary to God's goals.

In this sense I am left concluding that 'objective morality' is analogous to married bachelors and square circles. There is no objective morality, only actions and states which are objectively contrary to the subjective goals and preferences of the mind in question. Just because God has the power and capacity to reward or punish us for taking actions or enacting states which are contrary or aligned with his goals doesn't make them objective. The power to enforce your goals on others does not equate to objectivity because objectivity is required (by definition) to be independent of any mind or dispassionate and unemotional (something I'm not sure any mind can truly be).

Objectivity is not determined by popularity and it isn't determined by power or capacity, what is left? Perspective perhaps? God is omniscient right? Doesn't matter, God's morality is still dependent on his mind and that isn't objective.

I just can't see how Christians or any theist can claim their God is the source of an objective morality, it just doesn't make sense when you unpack what an 'objective morality' has to be. Unless they're going to claim God is somehow dispassionate and untouched by his personal emotions when determining his moral goals and desires or that God actually isn't a mind of some sort it can't be done.

Now Findo and I have had a pretty lengthy discussion about objective morality and he has claimed that by applying a subjective morality to others it becomes objective because it doesn't rely on their minds. Except it still depends on the mind of the applicant, even if they die, even if they leave existence, the morality has never ceased being the creation of a mind and is thus still subjective. Now the consequence of this does seem to be that nothing is objectively wrong, only wrong objectively according to subjective moral goals and desires, true. This also means in practice that a tyranny of moral majority is what occurs in human societies, yes I think this happens. Are these situations how I would prefer things to be? Not necessarily but my preference for reality has no bearing on what reality actually is and sometimes I think arguments about morality are not so much arguments about how reality works but how we wished reality worked.