Are these non-sequitur and circular reasoning?

Can you detect any non-sequitur or circular reasoning in the following arguments:

"If objective evil exists, then there must be some objective lawgiver beyond individuals or groups. "

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

f P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P

If P, then Q, Q, therefore P

Don't be wooed by what appears to be an argument without remembering that the if/then parts can be completely ad hoc or pulled out of thin air. For example,

If it is 3pm, then I am the smartest person in the world.

Before spending any time on the logic, we need to look at the evidence for the claim being made. If you even start debating the logic you have implicitly accepted the claims being made.

If objective evil exists, then there must be some objective lawgiver beyond individuals or groups.

Proof for this? Evidence?

Objective moral values do exist. 

Proof for this? Evidence?

This should be the primary objection.

My mantra, always check your premises. To do this one must precisely define the words used in the discussion.

Hi, Jack!

The declared question about exactly these quotations has not been answered, but thank you for asking it. This is elementary and you want want to learn how to fish. I would explain how to handle arguments, if you actually want to begin understanding how to answer questions like these on your own. To provide a fish for now: none of the quotations commits either fallacy.

The first, third and fourth quotations are not arguments, to begin with. The first quotation expresses a statement without any conclusion (which arguments do have), the third and fourth express no statements (which arguments do have) but are merely abstract forms that arguments can take. Though an argument taking the form of the third quotation is neither circular nor a non sequitur. An argument taking the form of the last quotation is not circular, and I suppose it would be a non sequitur. Though, "non sequitur" is suggested to be peculiar to arguments whose conclusions do not follow despite having true premises , though one needn't take the suggestion, nor do we know whether the premises are true (since no example argument for the form is being presented right now), all of which is why I say "I suppose."  

The second quotation is an argument. It is not a non sequitur; it's conclusion cannot be false, given the premises, but a non sequitur’s conclusion can be false, given the premises. Neither is the argument circular; it's premises do not presume that God exists, whereas the existence of God would be presumed by a circular argument with that conclusion.

I hope you will want to hear more on how to critically think about arguments. But I hope this fish for today has hit the spot.

Thank you, Jack

From, Kaiden