List of reasons to believe God exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

Which is tricky, because you're going to have a hard time pulling up morality in the lab. 

Labs "pull up harm" with regularity, the entire field of criminal forensics is devoted to it.  Not that we actually need a lab, harm is very often a thing we can detect with no equipment or training...though it has taken years to develop a body of knowledge regarding more subtle forms of harm that we can employ to predict the impact of some action or event x.

I agree with William Lane Craig that people just give lip service against free-will and morality, everyone actually believes in these things, no one actually doesn't believe in these things.

Probably has something to do with responding to religious misapprehensions thereof. I don't personally believe in religious descriptions of either thing, which are the only descriptions of either thing you are discussing when you use either term.

Frankly, I don't believe Atheists when they say God has not been proven to them, a few might be like that, but there is a great amount that isn't. They lack faith and don't believe, fine, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

-because you're a nut, but..now, there's a few, are there?  If there's a single one your religious beliefs have been proven false.  I take this as a good sign.  Your delusions are beginning to accomodate reality.  

There is another argument I made that is along the following lines that summarize it:

If objective morality is not real, we would not know an objective moral fact.
We know objective morality requires an absolute source and origin and judge that maintains it if it were real.
That is an objective moral fact we know to be true.
Therefore morality is real.

A poor argument for objective morality, and I'm telling you this as a person who has no trouble accepting or arguing for moral realism.  Let;s start with the beginning. 

Regardless of whether or not moral realism is true, there would be people who claimed moral knowledge.  We know this because in instances where we can demonstrate some moral proposition to be entirely subjective the claimant -still- calls it knowledge, considers it a fact.  

We don't know that objective morality requires an "absolute source and origin and judge that maintains it if it were real"...and, dryly, none of that has anything to do with an objective morality in the least.  

Since we don't actually know the above, and it isn't actually relevant to objective morality in the first place...it cannot be an objective moral fact we know to be true.

Therefore-...you are horrible at logic, and if people tell you..based on what you're describing above, that there is no such thing as your "objective morality"...then they wouldn't actually be wrong - but they wouldn't be arguing against moral realism - simply responding to your fact-free description of it. Unfortunately, for a great many people..fact free descriptions of morality are all they;ve ever heard described as- objective morality...and since that presents itself as a base contradiction in terms, it;s reasonable for them, in that situation, to assume that you're all a bunch of loons talking nonsense.

-Then I have to clean up your collective mess. When we ask ourselves "What is right and wrong" we are not asking ourselves "What did some fairy tell me to do/not do". This is why god is an irrelevance to moral realism, and why morality, including moral realism, is not a cogent reason to believe in a god. If there are moral facts, there are moral facts. If there is a god, there is a god. Neither depends upon or implies the other, and you are incapable of shoehorning it otherwise no matter how often you attempt to stuff the articles of your faith into a description of or argument for moral realism. I do think, though, that if you're going to make the attempt, you should at least put in the effort. God deserves your level best, no?