Suffering

[Mystic]

Not A -> Not B = B -> A

Let me see. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. Objective morality does exist, therefore God exists. Is that about it?

Both phrases mean the same thing.

So it's 'if not P, then not Q; Q; therefore P'. By analogy, 'If bananas aren't fruit, then they aren't blue;

they're not blue, therefore they're not fruit.'

More like


If Bananas aren't fruit, then they aren't blue.
If Bananas are blue, then they are fruit.

Would be equivalent statements.

Your statement is not proven by either.

Something is
wrong there, I suspect affirming the consequent has been snuck in, since the original argument is easily rephrased as: 'If God exists, then objective morality exists. Objective morality exists. Therefore God exists.'

The argument is however "If objective morality exists, then God exists".

That's definitely affirming the consequent, no difference in form from: 'If I am the president of the USA, I am a human. I am a human. Therefore I am president of the USA.'

That would be the case, but it's not the argument here.