The Moral Argument for God

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Being rich does not require the ownership of a helicopter.

The existence of a supreme being creates the objective moral values, doesn't it? After all, a supreme being is one against which everything else is compared. And if moral values exist, then they must be compared against a fixed standard in order to be objective. 

Otherwise, it's just your preference versus mine...and that's purely subjective.

Objective morality doesn't require the existence of God either. Read up, there are plenty of theories of morality that are as objective as Divine Command or Divine Moral Unity that don't require a deity.

Certainly an all-powerful creator of the universe is capable of creating a universe without objective morality, else it's not all-powerful, is it? As far as a fixed standard goes, that's nonsense. We don't need a fixed standard of ultimate weightiness to know a cow is objectively heavier than a mouse. We don't have to have a standard of ultimate awfulness to tell one action is worse than another.

False dichotomy: my preference can be measured against yours by various non-ultimate standards. What are the consequences of our different preferences? To what other conclusions does accepting them lead? Does one preference suffer from fewer contradictions than the other? Whose preferences are easier to reconcile with observable reality? And so on.