The Moral Argument for God

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.

---

I agree with the comment about denying the antecedent.  Even then, I think that this argument is more properly applied against materialism, than for God.  While God may be the best explanation we have for objective morality. I don't think it is necessary.   I think a better syllogism is 1) If materialism is true, then objective moral values do not exist.  2) Objective moral values exist  C)  Therefore materialism is not true.

I did recently see an interesting article concerning this subject.   Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist

1. Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
   
2. Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
   
3. Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
   
4. Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
   
5. Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
   
6. Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
   
7. Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance