How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

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.

If I have apples at home, and you ask me how many apples i have, and I indicated that I have 2. 2 here indicates how many apples i physically possess. You can come and see that I literally have 2 apples.

You have 2 apples. What you don't have is the "2". There's no "2" existing in a way that you physically grasp it. The only 2 that is real is that which is used to describe the quantity of the apples.

Similarly, for "good". There's no "good" in the sense that there is a physical referent. There's "good acts" and "bad acts" but not "good".

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?

I don't think you're grasping. So let's use another analogy.

Let say I find you ugly, not only do I find you ugly, but I claim you're objectively ugly.

Now you ask, "I understand that you find me ugly, but how am I objectively ugly."?

So, then I start listing your physical features, your height, your weight, eye color, the structure of your face, etc...

All of this might indicate why I find you ugly, but it does not establish the "objectiveness" of ugly, even though it's listing a variety of objective facts about your appearance.

You're not only claiming that x is (morally) bad, but that x is objectively bad. When I ask what makes it "objectively" bad, i get a list of physical descriptions of x, like physical descriptions of you.

The answers being provided doesn't establish that "bad" is objective", anymore so than my answers regarding your ugliness, establish "ugly" as objective. Do you get this?

If you have a list of such criteria by which one can determine whether one is ugly or not, and you're measuring ugliness by reference to those criteria, then that would be an objective measure of ugliness. In what way is that not objective? Since when do physical facts not indicate objectiveness?