Let me see. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. Objective morality does exist, therefore God exists. Is that about it?
So it's 'if not P, then not Q; Q; therefore P'. By analogy, 'If bananas aren't fruit, then they aren't blue; they're not blue, therefore they're not fruit.' Something is wrong there, I suspect affirming the consequent has been snuck in, since the original argument is easily rephrased as: 'If God exists, then objective morality exists. Objective morality exists. Therefore God exists.' That's definitely affirming the consequent, no difference in form from: 'If I am the president of the USA, I am a human. I am a human. Therefore I am president of the USA.'
So it's 'if not P, then not Q; Q; therefore P'. By analogy, 'If bananas aren't fruit, then they aren't blue; they're not blue, therefore they're not fruit.' Something is wrong there, I suspect affirming the consequent has been snuck in, since the original argument is easily rephrased as: 'If God exists, then objective morality exists. Objective morality exists. Therefore God exists.' That's definitely affirming the consequent, no difference in form from: 'If I am the president of the USA, I am a human. I am a human. Therefore I am president of the USA.'
