Neo, you also asserted that the moral argument isn't specifically an argument for Gods existence.
What then IS it an argument for?
Can you point to the actual wording that you are paraphrasing here. I didn't use those words so I'm not sure what you have, specifically, misunderstood.
Sure.
You wrote;
"...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"
If it's not an argument for God, what is it arguing for?
Ah, you see, I wrote "a null argument for God" not "not an argument for God". You really need to be more careful when misrepresenting other people. It clearly is an argument for god, but of a "null" kind. In other words, your null hypothesis is that your god exists. Any argument for your god like this one is just faffing around at the edges to disguise that fact. That's why the argument doesn't touch Craig's god.
Shall I explain?
The argument goes like this:
(Craig's cloaked premise) If god existed, then objective moral values and duties would exist.
(Craig's twisted premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist.
(Craig's dubious claim) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
(Craig's triumfantalist conclusion) Therefore, God exists.
The cloaked premise is the one that atheists could agree with. If an atheist agrees with the twisted premise, then that atheist has either misunderstood the premise or maintains a subtly different premise to the cloaked premise name "Objective moral values and duties would exist
if and only if god existed." Now, as an atheist, this person could agree with this premise but would find Craig's dubious claim to be false, based on the conclusion that god does not exist (arrived at via other considerations). Such an atheist would have, I imagine, little issue with the notion that some people think that objective moral values and duties exist. But people think all manner of crazy things, despite clear evidence.
As to why the argument does not touch Craig's god, we have to look at the cloaked premise, the one that atheists actually could agree with. The idea that the existence of god could lead to objective moral values and duties isn't contested. However, this mere statement does not remove the possibility of objective moral values and duties arising naturally. This is important for Craig's argument at this point, because if you contest this then the argument becomes entirely circular:
(1) If god did not exist, then things that cannot exist without god could not exist.
(2) But things that cannot exist without god do exist.
(3) Therefore god exists.
This is just a wordy way of saying "If god, therefore god" or "there is evidentiary proof of god, therefore god". If the latter, then why not quit the word-play variant of apologetics altogether and just wheel out the evidentiary proof?
We all know why, because there is no evidentiary proof.