Argument from Conscience

[I_am_not_mafia]

1) Each person is obligated to follow his or her moral conscience.
2) The human conscience is the product of something: either instinctual nature, the individual, society, or divine.
3) No one is morally obligated to follow instinct since instincts easily fail upon rational consideration.
4) No one individual’s conscience is absolute and morally binding on others.
5) Individual consciences cannot be added together unless each person relies on their own conscience to feel morally obliged to the group. Thus it is functionally equivalent to individual conscience as a source.
6) The only remaining source is something that transcends nature, the individual, and society. Such a source must be divine.

Usual apologetic technique of creating a whole load of steps that each follow on from each other and then making a huge leap of logic that is not supported by the previous steps in the hope that no one notices. Specifically in this case ...

Who says that there is a remaining source? That assumption is completely unsubstantiated and not addressed by the previous steps. The whole argument assumes that morality is objective and exists even without the presence of humans and it does not even feel it necessary to state this. 6) could just as easily be:

6) The chocolate tea pot orbiting on the far side of the sun was therefore put there by a higher being.