I appricate your continued interest. You’re asking some good questions, and I hope to do my best in responding to them. I can admire your skepticism as well, as both theists need to be just as skeptical of arguments for God’s existence as atheists.
So, without further hesitation, I’ll do my best to address your response. Your first objection was,
There are too many presuppositions and qualifiers required to P1 which make the foundation of the argument too precarious. Mathematically speaking, you haven’t done the proof of P1.
I believe I already provided a justification for premise 1 in the main post, I stated,
if one ought not to be morally perfect, then it leads to a contradiction with the Kantian dictum. Suppose we cannot be morally perfect, since we cannot behave in accord with all obligations we ought not act in accord with any. Suppose for example I failed to not steal. I could legitimately respond by saying, “hey, no one can be perfect, and you ought not hold it against me that I act imperfectly once in a while”.
The above works as a reductio ad absurdum, if we assume it is not the case we ‘ought to be morally perfect’, then it follows we could not do all we are obliged to. And hence we are not obliged to do anything (contradicting the kantian dictum of premise 2) since we’re bound to fail anyway.
The apparent contradiction with at least Western protestant Christian orthodoxy. In addition to P1 needing to be too defined in the face of other arguments, P3 also seems a huge irrational leap of faith, before even getting to C2.
Well, I believe Anglicans and Lutherans would be an exception to the rule of Orthodox western protestantism, given there are many theologians within who retain the atonement views of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, if someone of a reformed point of view wanted to use a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, they could do so.
But even granting your point, It would be so much the worse for protestant western orthodoxy. I provided justification for premise three by pointing out moral perfection is impossible under naturalism, and a form of theism would require an atonement theory to set the wrongs, hence my additional Anselmian argument in the original.
IOW, it seems to me, you still have to accept that God exists in order to prove God exists, Christian or otherwise.
“That depends on your meta-ethic”
Which seems to be exactly the point.
I don’t see your point, plenty of atheists are moral realists. My argument is from normative ethics, not meta-ethics. No theistic presupposition required.