How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

Moore is saying that it's meaningful to ask the question "Is harm really bad?" unlike with say "is a bachelor an unmarried man?"

Yes, it’s a meaningful question because there is a distinction in meaning between good and harm, or else it would be a meaningless tautology like saying a bachelor whose also an unmarried man.

Good is distinct from harm, same way it’s distinct from a pizza.

Or it may well be that good is distinct from harm in the same way water is distinct from H2O. Again, there are good counterarguments against the open question argument that continue to be successful.

But doesn't matter anyway. The argument hasn't really been successful over time. Again, Google the counterarguments.

There’s plenty of argument like that of Hume is/ought that many individuals think they have resolved like Sam Harris, without really understanding them.

Nonsense. I wasn't referring to Sam Harris anyway. Again, google the counterarguments. There's more than one. Just as the logical problem of evil has not been successful over time, the open question argument also has not been successful over time.

And Moore was nevertheless not a supernaturalist. There's no God in his position.

He’s not, he’s just a non-naturalist, there no God in his view here.

But that’s because it’s incomplete, not fully realized, his picture though true, is only partly formed. Wittgenstein was a student ( he was also a student of Bertrand Russel), and eventual teacher of Moore as well, his views are far more realized than Moore’s.

Even if I were to concede Moore's point, it would already be complete on its own. Adding a God into the equation would be unwarranted. You're just adding a different type of sugar over a dessert that's already sugary enough.