The Moral Argument for God

[Alex K]

That logic is simply wrong.
The way you have written 1., you can only conclude from it that IF God exists, THEN there are objectIve morals. Not the reverse.

Are you certain of this? 

I'm not saying I am 100% certain because I'm not trained in logic (having only one course in college), but all the questions raised in this thread have sent me googling for a refresher. I can't link to the site but if I understood what I read correctly, Hotmath.com explains that the contrapositive of a true statement is also true. 

If P, then Q. TRUE
If not Q, then not P. TRUE

So, in the moral argument:

If God exists (P), then objective moral values and duties exist (Q).
If objective moral values and duties do not exist (not Q), then God does not exist (not P).

That is correct.
But that is not what your OP says. There, it says
■
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.

Do you think the two are somehow equivalent? The one you just quoted doesn't even attempt to prove that God exists. It only gives a possible proof that God does not exist. I am confuse

One other point that sort of tips me in the direction of thinking that the logic of the argument in the OP is valid is that IF IT WEREN'T, theists wouldn't even bother making the argument in the first place, because atheists wouldn't tolerate it. 

Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that the logic is valid. The real questions concern the definitions of the terms and the premises themselves.

---

No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.

Where do these ideas come from?

And if Nazis think that killing Jews is good, would you agree with them?

Guys, guys, we can pack our stuff and go home. They have discovered the Hitler argument. It's over. Atheism is done for.