In a youtube video a commentator summarizes Andrew Klavan's argument as the following:
- If God does not exist, there are no objective moral values.
- There are objective moral values.
- God exists.
The commentator says it takes the form of modus tollens thus it is valid.
Is the commentator correct? It appears to me that you could substitute p for "God does not exist" and q for "there are no objective moral values". Then structure them as a modus tollens and get a valid argument:
- p -> q
- not q
- thus not p
which amounts to the argument above.
FYI what I mean by stated negatively is "God does not exist" vs if I stated it positively "God does exist".