YouTuber Rationality Rules created a video called "WLCs Moral Argument Debunked" (https://youtu.be/FQfujdlO4oY)P1 : If God does not exist there are no Objective moral values or duties. P2 : Objective moral values exist. C1 : Therefore God exists.He raises the following objections : 2:00 Because God does not exist P1 is false and the argument is a non sequitor. 2:33 If you replace the word God with Cthulu you will realise how ridiculous this argument is. 2:49 I can interpret "Objective" to have different meanings therefore the use of the reference marker "Objective" in the syllogism commits the false equivocation fallacy. 3:40 If Craig is using the definition that Objective moral values are universal then it needn't refer to God there are other theories like Kants deontological ethics, the golden rule etc. (note these are normative!)4:35 If Craig means a reference point that exists independently of human experience by "Objective" then he is wrong because in Utilitarianism (Harris) pleasure/pain is an objective reference point or consequence is. 6:00 - 6:55 ish - In these two quotes taken out of context Craig appears to contradict himself so he is wrong. 7:33 Equivocation Fallacy. 7:57 Argument from ignorance fallacy 8:22 Craig commits the God of the gaps fallacy. 8:31 Burden of proof fallacy. Craig shifts the burden of proof so he is wrong. 9:04 Craigs argument doesnt support monotheism. ------What do you think of the video?I think this was an incredibly dishonest and I don't even think the smarmy way he puts across these "logical fallacies" when it's not even an appropriate use most of the time - it's a completely dishonest engagement of Craigs argument. However I would like to know what other people think and whether it is even worth debunking terrible (yet worryingly popular) videos like these?