The moral argument, for atheism!

[Mr.wizard]

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.

I do understand reductio absurdum but my point is that if god is the author of morals and he must be good then he can not make a moral decision that is bad. Meaning that making the decision to not inform us must be good as we established in premise. Therefore a god who is the source of morality, who is good, and who chooses not to inform us could in fact exist.