Suffering

[Angrboda]

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist (some things are evil).
4. Therefore, God exists.

In #2, that needs to be "objectively evil acts, things or creatures exist," or something similar. (What is required is not just evil but "objective evil".) As a result, #2 is not the negation of the consequent in #1, and therefore the negation of the consequent in #3 is invalid and #4 does not follow. The proof is flawed by what is essentially ignoratio elenchi. Yes, the existence of objective evil might lead to a persuasive argument, however since that is not established, the "proof" is invalid. Of course, if you could prove either objective evil or objective good, you wouldn't need such proofs in the first place; in line with Euthyphro's dilemma, people could likely be persuaded to follow those objective morals, whether or not they emanated from God.

Proving the existence of objective moral values. That would be sweet. I already know where the first $100,000 of my Nobel would be going.