How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

Let's think of that for a second.

Person A subscribe to a particular moral theory like your own, and has a definition of good and bad in mind.

Person B lacks any particular moral theory, and has no particular definition of good and bad in mind, and finds in undefinable.

Both person A and person B recognize "torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong".

Do you think person A unlike person B ran this question through the formula of their particular moral theory, and derived that it's "bad" as a result?

Or would you agree with me that Person A and Person B recognized that this is wrong, by the same basis, regardless of whatever moral theory they subscribed to? That if we  took scans of their brains, we'd likely see the question processed through a similar pathway?

If person A unlike Person B has a definition of Good in mind, has a well articulated moral theory, it's attachment to the recognition here, is done after the fact, attached after the recognition.

How did person B recognize that torturing innocent babies just for is wrong, if he has no real definition of wrongness, no particular moral theory he subscribes too? How does a 3 month old recognize that the actions of the helper are good, but the hinderer are not, when he has yet to acquire a language let alone definitions?

Our moral intuitions are product of evolutionary and/or social conditioning (depending on level of morality and what exactly we're talking about). Yet some people, due to defects in the brain, don't even have that concept of right or wrong.

And 3 month olds lack the capacity to recognize much of anything as right or wrong.

Yes, people don't normally reason out why X is right or wrong, but that doesn't [necessarily] mean that the intuition came about because of some divine entity or because of some platonic thingy out there whatever it may be. You jump the gun when you conclude that all this must be because of the Good.