LionIRC,
More fully, I wrote this:
This is akin to:
1. Major Premise – If Trevor is a vampire (A) then Trevor will sleep during the day (B).
2. Minor Premise – Trevor sleeps during the day (B).
3. Conclusion – Therefore, Trevor is a vampire (A).
Thus those on the night shift get shafted, yet again. This is clearly a fallacy (irrespective of whether Trevor is a vampire) because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Craig's framing of the argument this way has the reader feeling that it's wrong somehow, but unsure of how, where or why. The fact is, the argument is a null argument for God in that even if the opponent argues successfully for the non-existence of moral values and duties, that won't touch Craig's God since, in the strict framing of the argument, the existence of God isn't contingent on the existence of moral values and duties - only the reverse. The argument is framed purely to trick the opponent into conceding what looks like an acceptable premise (like the Major Premise in the fallacious version), then bludgeoning them into accepting at least a single objective moral value or duty to obtain a technical victory.
Please address the entirety of the argument in future. I didn't make isolated assertions in the way that you imply.
The argument is fallacious when untwisted. While still twisted, it still feels wrong (which is the correct way to feel, because it's fallacious) but working out why it's wrong is more difficult. Surely you realise that the vampire argument is fallacious? It's precisely the same form of argument as Craig uses, once the use of negation is removed.
I can twist it back up for you, if I must:
1. Major Premise – If Trevor is not a vampire (not A) then Trevor will not sleep during the day (not B).
2. Minor Premise – Trevor sleeps during the day (B).
3. Conclusion – Therefore, Trevor is a vampire (A).
This screws with the mind due to the two nots. Perhaps it doesn't screw with yours, but if you see that it is wrong, then you can see that the structure is the same as Craig uses, and the structure must be therefore be wrong.
I fixed the link.