And by the way, thanks again to Damion for pointing me to The King And I blog.
I think WL Craig's explanation of what he means by "objective moral values" is very helpful. Paraphrased from memory, it's "by objective moral values I mean that they are true independent of whether anyone believes them or not". So that would more closely align with your former proposition: if it is a statement which accurately describes the arrangement of objects in time and space. Close, that is, b/c although obviously I quibble with the "time and space" part of it, the truth value of the statement "I am sitting on a chair right now" (which has to do with the arrangement of objects in time and space) is equal to the truth value of the statement "idolatry is never morally justifiable".
This leads me to a question about your "time and space" comment - are statements about conceptual truths like "a is not non-a in the same way and at the same time (where a is an idea, not a materia object)" objective according to your definition?
Also, you said:
Most of the universe is merely matter/energy in motion
On naturalistic materialism, I am not at all sure that this statement can be substantiated. It seems to be a hypothesis, but one for which, with anything close to our current level of technology and observational power, any level of nearly-complete evidence could be marshaled. Do you disagree?
And on Christianity, the question is impossible to answer and not really that important. God has not revealed how many angels and demons exist. What if there were quadrillions of each, 1000s for each human that has ever existed or will ever exist? We don't know how "big" they are. The characteristics of the plane they inhabit. How "big" Heaven and Hell are. And of course, the number of dead humans whose souls are some"where" at least matches the number of humans currently alive.
Anyway, it's also interesting that the moral statements to which I refer, ie God's moral laws/commands, are also decisions in the mind of God, so in a way, they are both.
The missing element here might be the normative value, the applicability and authority that a command from God the Creator has over the entire creation. If I say "idolatry is morally wrong", what normativity or authority does that have? What obligation would anyone else have to follow it? Thus it is merely my sentiment, my feeling. It's ultimately a description of what I think, for whatever reason I may have to think it, not a PREscription of what others OUGHT to do or ought not to do.
For more on this, and at the risk of pointing you to something you've already read, permit me to refer to this post.