How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

A fucking troll is all I can figure. Acro will go down in AF history as the guy who doesn’t know why torturing babies is bad. Nay; he’ll be known as the guy who’d rather be known as the guy who doesn’t know why torturing babies is bad, than be known as the Christian who admits there are reasons why torturing babies is bad that have nothing to do with a god. That’s some reputation to have following you around for net-ternity.

I’ll take that as a yes, that is the type of answer you were looking for. Now I tried to explain why that answer regardless if I gave it, or anyone else here gave it doesn’t answer your question as to why it’s “objectively wrong”.

Imagine if I claimed that good and bad when it comes to pizza is objective, rejecting those that suggest it’s subjective:

And you ask me why is dominos pizza objectively good?

I start describing to you the physical facts of the pizza, the ratio of cheese to crust the variety of toppings, the degree of crispness.

Perhaps you can see why this response doesn’t actually answer the question? It doesn’t establish the “objectiveness” of good here.

Perhaps you recall Grandizer indicating that good and bad are not in the physical properties of anything, they’re not anywhere.

So when the question is what is “objectively wrong” about x, the answer isn’t anywhere in the physical description of x, or it’s consequences, etc...

The type of answer you’re expecting, that you’re frustrated with me for not providing, is one that doesn’t actually answer the question, it just pulls the wool over your eyes.

Then you really don't seem to grasp what is being said. Descriptors exist as descriptors, they exist abstractly as part of reality, but they don't exist independently of physical objects within reality. They exist, and their existencei s contingent on the physical and on the apprehending mind. But to exist abstractly means there's no location for them in the way there's location for concrete things. So when you ask where is the good located, you might as well ask what is the color of rancid?

And going back to your main point:

Math is itself considered an objective field of study. Yet what is mathematics really other than a collection of models of reality. Even 2 + 2 = 4 is a model of what we see in nature. There's no 2s or 4s in nature in any concrete sense, but we see various objects, some identical to one another, and we perceive separation between these objects. And we came up with models to simulate what we see; we have decided that after 1 comes 2, and 2 after 2 comes 4, hence things such as 2 + 2 = 4.