How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

Here's how I see it (yeah, still awake because sleeping disorder kicking in once again):

Evolution + natural selection ... + social conditioning ... + personal learning and experiences => the ability and the intuition to apprehend X as right/wrong

Something about X (X causes harm, X promotes flourishing, X fosters altruism) => stimulus signals received via sensory apparatus and sent as nervous impulses to the brain

Brain => biological computer-like organ processing the received signals and readying output responses and/or perceptions, based on inbuilt algorithms and heuristics, with differing mechanisms for differing signals

Perception about X => intuition or determination that X is right/wrong (this happens subconsciously, not consciously), sometimes associated with/followed by relatively strong emotional feelings (depending on the X and the brain's wirings)

Philosophical/intellectual motivations => consciously determining/speculating what really are the specific mechanisms involved and what standard(s)/philosophy(ies) were used

I think your problem is that you conflate the how a metal detectors detects metal, with the metal itself. How the brain detects what's good, with good itself. I'm also not asking about the nature of the metal detectors, but the nature of the metal being detected.

If you think the brain detects and creates a subjective good, that's one thing. But we're talking about a objective good, which exists outside of our brain. I believe there is a non-natural objective good that exists outside of our brain, and our brains have the ability to perceive/detect it.

Here it is again, talking about "good" in a way that you have yet to demonstrate is a thing.

The post covers both the "metal detector" and the "metal", which is the act itself, not the "good" ... and how the metal detector was shaped. You, on the other hand, make no attempt to explain all the important aspects of morality.