He would be correct only if the moral argument is correct.
Also "evil" in the context mostly has to do with the idea of suffering.
We can make the following syllogism that brings the issue of the problem of evil and with acknowledging the moral argument:
1. Human morality seems to be that it's good to get rid of all suffering.
2. God's morality (if he exist) seems to be that it's not good to get rid of all suffering.
3. Therefore human morality and God's morality cannot both be true if morality is absolute and morality is derived from God.
4. Therefore morality either is not absolute or not derived from God.
5. If morality is absolute, it is not derived from God.
6. Without God, no morality is absolute (moral argument)
7. Without absolute morality, there is no God.
8. Therefore neither absolute morality or God exists.
As you can see, the problem of evil/suffering is not really solved by appealing to the moral argument.
Also "evil" in the context mostly has to do with the idea of suffering.
We can make the following syllogism that brings the issue of the problem of evil and with acknowledging the moral argument:
1. Human morality seems to be that it's good to get rid of all suffering.
2. God's morality (if he exist) seems to be that it's not good to get rid of all suffering.
3. Therefore human morality and God's morality cannot both be true if morality is absolute and morality is derived from God.
4. Therefore morality either is not absolute or not derived from God.
5. If morality is absolute, it is not derived from God.
6. Without God, no morality is absolute (moral argument)
7. Without absolute morality, there is no God.
8. Therefore neither absolute morality or God exists.
As you can see, the problem of evil/suffering is not really solved by appealing to the moral argument.
