How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Belacqua]

It's not a consensus, it's nature.

There is a current consensus about the best way to achieve wellbeing, more or less. This can change quite a bit. The consensus in different times and places can be pretty different. Maybe it's nature that we aim for wellbeing, but concepts of what that consists of and how to get there vary. 

People aim for good because that's how we've evolved via natural selection. 

This begs the question that what is good is the same as what natural selection made us consider that we want. If you say that the contingent preferences we have due to natural selection is exactly equal to what's good, then what you say is true. But I think that's awfully close to the appeal to nature fallacy. It's possible that natural selection gave us all kinds of preferences that we find it more moral to suppress. 

It would be safer to say that practical steps toward our evolutionarily decided preference are expedient, given that goal. Whether they are good or not is a separate question.

But at the core, humans (as a species) have enough motivation to do what's good, help their loved ones, be kind to others, we just don't always make the right moral decisions and choices.

Jeez, have you read any history? You know what's going on in the world? How can you be such a pollyanna? 

 But the lack of perfection does not logically necessitate a perfect entity or means or whatever. To think so would be a fallacy.

Yes, I agree. A lack of perfection is not an argument for a Good over and above the natural.