The Moral Argument for God

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...

I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

You should probably let other people weigh in before you declare the logic of an argument solid. Your argument actually embodies a formal fallacy: Denying the Antecedent, I'm pretty sure. At any rate:

If I am not Bill Gates, then I am not rich.
I am not Bill Gates.
Therefore, I am not rich.

See?

No, that's not right, I didn't follow your form exactly.

If not P, then not Q.
P
Therefore Q.

If I'm not rich, I don't own a helicopter.
I'm rich.
Therefore I own a helicopter.