The moral argument, for atheism!

[Angrboda]

Not sure I see what Mr. Wizard is saying about premise 2 conflicting with 1.

However, if morality were not deterministically discoverable such that true from false morals could be determined, that fact alone would lead to more immorality rather than less simply through sheer accident of good people mistaking false morality for true.  I doubt that's compatible with traditional attributes of God.

I don't see how a God can be set up as the source of morality that must be good and then have moral obligations. If god was the source of morality and god said that not revealing objective morals is in fact moral, how could you argue with that? Not only have you already established that the god must be morally good but you wouldn't have your own morality to judge that god because it is already established that the god himself is the source of morality.

I believe her point was that the assumption that God is all good and the author of morals was at odds with the observation that he doesn't inform us unambiguously of the content of those morals. That's a standard reductio ad absurdum argument, which, if sound, provides reasonable grounds for rejecting the initial assumption. You seem to not understand how arguments work.