How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

Acrobat, I don't believe in a Platonic good, so comparing it to the sun in your analogies is pointless because I don't accept the analogy.

Good is purely abstract, there is no physical object to which we can point to and say "That is the good".

That doesn't mean that therefore good must be based on personal tastes.

I agree, there is no physical object we can point to and say that is the good. 

If the moral goodness and wrongness of things can be objective truths, whatever space these objective truths occupy, it's immaterial. 

In order for it to be an objective truth, it can't just be an idea in my head, but one out there.

All the world exists as picture in our head, yet we distinguish a world of our imagination, and the world that's out there. The beach I'm sitting at, is just in my imagination, as I dream of warmer weather and a vacation, while the room I'm seeing now, is not. This room is here, a part of reality. 

Some atheists would say that  the good you and I see is just our imagination, if we mistake it for out there, we're just seeing an illusion of objectivity, but not truly something objective. Is that your view?

---

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.

---

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.

Lol, you wanna take a fourth stab at it, Acro? You look exponentially more foolish every time you evade the question. I mean, really. This should be easy. Babies, ffs. Here we go. #4’s a charm:

Why is it objectively wrong to torture babes?

*popcorn*

Hum, let's try answering it the way someone here might. 

Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society. 

Then it could be asked. why is causing unnecessary suffering, harming the wellbeing of society, objectively wrong?

Eventually at the end of that chain, wrongness becomes like the color of the thing being described, as opposed to the way it makes us feel.