Basically, his argument is the following. You don't necessarily have to read this.
Adams considers one objection:
But I'm wondering if his defense against the objection is good.
The part in bold goes over my head. Is he making a good point here? Sorry if it's tl;dr

Sounds to me like he's basically acknowledging that his argument is bull****.

I'm not sure what he meant by his defense to the objection either. I think his initial argument was rubish.

It seems that the objection is that the argument becomes circular if we claim things are right or wrong if God exists, then turn around and say that God exists if things are objectively right or wrong.

I believe that he is trying to avoid this by stating the argument works if one already affirms that objective right and wrong exists. In other words one must start out with the affirmation that objective morality already exists for the argument to carry any weight.

I'm not familiar with Adams' argument, so I can't evaluate the soundness of his overall argument. Based on your summary it looks to me like he is trying to avoid having his argument interpreted as being like the ontological argument. That is, he is saying that his claim in (a) about "wrongness" is not knowable analytically (that is, from just looking at the meaning of the word, "wrongness."). Instead, he is claiming (a) on some other basis--perhaps from an argument to the best explanation or some such type of reasoning.

So in the bolded part he is saying that it is compatible with the meaning of "wrongness" that it refers to some different property than the one he claims it refers to.

The argument only "works" logically (based on the form presented here) if one starts with the affirmation that God is responsible for morality.

He's basically saying in the second quote that he isn't really claiming this as a premise, he's just "putting it out there" and then seeing the consequences.

I mean, he has defined his premise as just "proposing an answer to a question left open by the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong.'" So his argument is that if we "propose" God as the source of morality, then God exists! Genius!

It's more babble that isn't even designed to be logical. He's given a poorly-constructed ontological argument and then he has backtracked and claimed that the premises aren't asserted claims but just "proposed answers" to questions of the universe.

Is it invalid? In more than one way?

a. Wrongness is the property of being contrary to the commands of a loving God.
b. Some actions are wrong.
c. Therefore these actions are contrary to the commands of a loving God.
d. Something can be contrary to the commands of a loving God only if a loving God exists.
e. Therefore a loving God exists.

Well, it seems valid but also circular (though it's not a good formal presentation if that's what it's intended to be).

im not sure its a good point, but its a fair one i guess. he's saying that his argument is also (in addition to being an argument) an answer to what right and wrong can mean, but not the entire meaning of those words. (edited for clarification.)

so basically, to get out of the circularity, he turns the questionable initial premise into an axiom and proceeds from there.

The problematic part of the argument centers around the definition of "wrong." This is similar to Anselm's argument on God's existence in that it works, but it's pretty circular and again only creates a God that is a linguistic construction without much meaningful said about it/him.

That's the way that I took it.

I believe this is correct. This is the gist of the moral argument Craig makes - given the existence of objective morality, God exists. Many atheists, according to Craig, agree with the logic of this, they just deny the existence of objective morality. One atheist who doesn't agree is Anthony, which is why I've often recommended her debate with Craig.

This sums it up nicely. I'll favorite that debate and watch it later.

If anybody else cares to watch it (I haven't yet), NotReady recommends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIt9iDBR7_Y

My science, every time I start watching one of his debates, I cringe and get angry at his constant false reasoning and emotional appeals when speaking of atheism. His insistence on a constant barrage of negative words, associating those with atheism, lets me think less of him easily. It makes it harder and harder each to time to have to persist in listening to his arguments. Not only are they offensive in the way he presents them, they are not made to convince the atheist, only to anger and confuse them.

Watching the debate. Thought popped in my head.
For the Christian, is not the divine command theory a given due to the bible? Are there not plenty of instances (in the bible) where God changes his mind regarding certain acts, endorsing their "moral" worth?

For the same reason, dr Craigs counterargument to the Eutyprho argument, or "third option", best stated at the start of part 6, seems to me to be objectively wrong ().

Craig is alot better in the later rounds (with some fairly bad counterarguments from antony), definately someone to keep watching, but I think next time im simply going to skip the first round, as this isnt the first time he uses that to spout none-sense and abuse emotion and emotionally laden words and commonplaces.
Regardless, this was a decent debate.

Do you sleep, Tao? (I didn't last night, writing a paper about this damned modified divine command theory... )

I wonder what Craig would say about Martin Luther's statement in his book "Bondage of the Will". Luther says that Christians must make assertions. We are required to.

"Away, now, with the Sceptics and Academics from the company of us Christians; let us have men who will assert, men twice as inflexible as very Stoics."

He's online here: http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm

kagan handled this debate much better than antony...i haven't watched much of craig, but he is seeming to do the same thing dsouza does...he basically has a script of arguments and counters and doesnt adjust them between debates, so it becomes more of a performance than an actual debate to understand/learn...

dsouza brings up the hitler/stalin/etc argument no matter who he debates, you would figure this is an argument that has been properly discounted...craig bring up the "no ultimate meaning = no meaning" argument in this debate, even though kagan seemed to thoroughly destroy it during their debate...

Here are some other quotes by martin luther that seem to be in line with your bigotry.

For other 'interesting texts' by Martin Luther, you can read

Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants

On the Jews and Their Lies

Of the Unknowable Name and the Generations of Christ

Yes, Martin Luther was a particularly nasty piece of work. An opportunist who allied with the German princes against the populace for his own stature.

The true bigot here is you MelchyBeau. It seems you can't handle a counter argument without blowing a widget.

People are allowed to think and speak freely in a free society. Only conduct or actions is regulated with punishment in a free society.

Many thinkers are flawed in both their thinking and their lifestyles. That's why philosophy is a pit when it comes to religion. The best you can hope for is the occasional pearl from the philosophers. The only thinker that was ever completely sane and got everything right is Jesus Christ and that's why there are so many books written about him.

So in light of this. Do all christians endorse the divine command theory?

Its ot I know, but the original discussion seems to have died, if its not appropriate to go further with this part of the discussion, let me know OP.