The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

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. [emphasis added] 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?

How on earth do I think...well, the moral argument is pretty well known, it's been around for a very long time, and there are lots of websites that discuss it in great detail. 

But finally...an opportunity to get to the actual premises themselves. Thank you!

First, can you describe how it it possible to have objective moral values without a god? The challenge for the non-believing crowd, as I understand it, is that without a fixed reference point, there is no way to establish the "objective" aspect of morality; everything becomes subjective. Have a go at that (and thanks in advance, btw).

Second, it seems to me that we know that objective moral values do exist because we behave this way every day. Whenever we say, "That's not fair!", we are measuring the action in question against some standard that everyone is somehow expected to know. Even little kids on a playground recognize that when someone cuts in line to go down the slide, an injustice has been done. Where do we get these notions from?

Finally, even if, as you say, it's possible "to have a god that doesn't provide objective moral values", this fact doesn't really aid the freethinker, does it? I mean, he might argue, "I don't believe in objective moral values" but you'd counter that a god might still exist. If you're right, then the atheist can no longer use the argument that "there are no objective moral values" as justification for denying the existence of a god. Meanwhile, the believer might lose the use of this one argument but not the belief in his god. 

Who has gotten the better of that exchange?