How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

A pizza is an external thing, saying it's good and bad comes from us, it's as expression of our taste and feelings, our likes and dislikes. When i say this pizza is good, I'm telling you that it tastes pleasant to me. Good and bad here are expressions of my biological, internal state.

You agreed that this is not what you mean when referring to good and bad in a moral sense, that good and bad are not an expression of your likes and dislikes. When you say that the holocaust  (an external thing) is bad, you're not saying it's bad simply because you don't like it (which would be true for the pizza). 

Clearly you recognize the nature of good and bad in a moral sense, is distinctly different then when we use good bad when referring to subjective things like fashion, taste in music movies, etc....

" I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it." - Bertrand Russell (though it's probably a good description of the place you find yourself in now)

Good and bad are products of our intuition built and developed through millennia of evolution (and in some cases social conditioning). We see X causes unnecessary harm and we intuit that X must therefore be bad. As a result, we dislike it because is bad.

What I don't agree with is that X is bad because there is something floating out there in space that reveals it to be bad.

Our perception of the sun is product of our intuition, and sensory organs, etc. built and developed through millennia of evolution. Good and bad are no more a product of our evolution, then the sun is a product of our evolution, only the components involved in our perceptions here, intuitive and otherwise. 

If good and bad are not ultimately a description of our likes a dislike, a description of our internal biological state, then yes they are out there, not in here.

---

Let's take the statement torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, is an objective truth. The sun is shining outside my window is also an objective truth. 

Does how I come to recognize any of these objective truths, make them any less of an objective truth? 

No. Further, if the method you use to come by that truth doesn’t involve any god, then that renders god unnecessary, and unrelated to any moral truths. I’ll ask you a third time, because you seem to want to evade the question: Why is it objectively wrong to torture babies?

As opposed to subjectively wrong? Because wrongness is not a description of our likes and dislikes, saying it's morally bad to torture babies just for fun, isn't equivalent to saying my dinner tasted bad. I'm not describing an internal biological state, but rather something external to myself, to say it's objectively wrong, is like saying my wife's dress is yellow, as opposed to pretty.