How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

You have made no attempt to demonstrate such a reality that you speak of. You just jump the gun by going there without first ruling out the naturalistic explanations.

The descriptor "bad" is linked to what the act itself entails, "good" is not floating out there somewhere in the divine realm.

I've indicated that we all recognize the objective badness of x, and that this objectiviness is real and not an illusion, or something subjective. 

I've also demonstrated that this objective badness of x does not exist in any of scientific/natural facts  about x. So if the objective badness of x is true, than it exists as a non-natural reality/property.

You have made no such demonstration. Repeatedly asserting is not demonstrating, neither is arguing by false analogy.

"good/bad" exists in the same way that "green" exists in a green leaf. There's no floaty weird spooky stuff going on by which you then recognize something is good or bad, lol.

---

Ultimately, it wouldn’t matter if he could or did and in his defense he thinks that his moral position -does- go a way to demonstrating that. That’s the proving too much bit.  No matter how many times he clutches his pearls when this obvious aspect of his argument is brought up.

It wouldn’t matter, because he would only be giving a justification for his moral theory.  It would remain a fact that there were other equally valid and equally true moral theories which don’t require these divine props.

This demonstrates that divine props are only necessary to -his- moral theory, not morality.  That they are necessary to his worldview, not the world.

Even in accordance with his worldview he has yet to demonstrate it. He has done a good job of assuming though.