The Moral Argument for God

[Esquilax]

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'm sorry, how on earth do you think the logic of that argument is in any way solid? The first premise has an "if P, then Q" formulation without ever so much as indicating how P and Q are related; it's possible to have objective moral values without a god, and it's equally possible to have a god that doesn't provide objective moral values either. So P doesn't entail Q necessarily, nor does Q entail P without additional legwork not done in the argument. The second premise is merely a fiat assertion, and the conclusion relies upon premises that are both unjustified and, frankly, logically incoherent.

And you find all this to be solid in its construction? How is that even possible?