How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

But let's say no non-natural reality like this exists. What could be a naturalistic explanation of the phenomenon here?

As already shown, you see “non natural” and cream your pants thinking that it means pixies.  

It doesn’t, it’s just a description of “badness” by reference to an idea and whether or not the natural facts of a matter are bad-alike.

Moral non naturalism is just as natural as moral naturalism is, in the broader scope.  The difference isn’t that one fits in naturalism and the other doesn’t, lol.  They both fit that framework.  One simply states that moral facts can’t be reduced to non moral facts.  It’s reference,  rather than reduction, theory of realism.  

""In addition to categorising "good" as indefinable, Moore also emphasized that it is a non-natural property. This means that it cannot be empirically or scientifically tested or verified - it is not within the bounds of "natural science""


An idea in our head is not a non-natural property, it's reducible to a natural property of the mind. 

Non-Naturalism, posits posses a non-natural reality/property outside of our minds, and outside of natural facts of science. 

As already shown, you see “non natural” and cream your pants thinking that it means pixies.

I think it's the exact opposite. As advocate of naturalism, you hear the term "non-naturalism" uttered by an atheists, and you shit your pants. I'm not phased one way or the other if an atheists subscribe to such a view. I think you engaged in some weird sort of projecting.