Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.

[arewethereyet]

As we all know from the study of Anthropology, there are no moral behaviors which are general and universal.
For example the Hebrews practiced child sacrifice, (there is at least one example in the Bible). Your premise is false.

Your OP is refuted easily by Euthyphro's Dilemma "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
and by Epicurus, "“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him Gog"

You're welcome.

Your arrogant mike-drop was a bit premature. The dilemma ignores the third alternative which is this: God is identical to the Good and to be good is to participate in that divine nature.

You're welcome.

You have a lot of nerve calling anyone else arrogant.

[Deesse23]

If the source of our conscience is not transcendent and eternal then the only alternative is that our judgements of right and wrong are biological instincts particular to our species.

False dichotomy.
Other species of apes also show morality, aka. sense of right and wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the source of our conscience is not transcendent and eternal then the only alternative is that our judgements of right and wrong are biological instincts particular to our species. While it is simple enough to recognize this sense of justice implicit in the various ways different cultures express and try to codify it, doing so only yields a normative description of a compelling collective illusion.

Absurdly and lazily false. You know better, but it didn’t stop you from saying it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If the source of our conscience is not transcendent and eternal then the only alternative is that our judgements of right and wrong are biological instincts particular to our species.

False dichotomy.
Other species of apes also show morality, aka. sense of right and wrong.

Which proves my point. Other species operate under biological instincts that may or may not produce compelling illussions particular to their species. In physical reduction those illusions have no objective referent.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If the source of our conscience is not transcendent and eternal then the only alternative is that our judgements of right and wrong are biological instincts particular to our species. While it is simple enough to recognize this sense of justice implicit in the various ways different cultures express and try to codify it, doing so only yields a normative description of a compelling collective illusion.

Absurdly and lazily false. You know better, but it didn’t stop you from saying it.

I see you cannot be bothered to write a constructive response.

[Fake Messiah]

So when people are nice that proves god, but when they go to crusades, have slaves, burn people as heretics, do holocausts because they think it is moral then it doesn't prove god.

[Angrboda]

If the source of our conscience is not transcendent and eternal then the only alternative is that our judgements of right and wrong are biological instincts particular to our species. While it is simple enough to recognize this sense of justice implicit in the various ways different cultures express and try to codify it, doing so only yields a normative description of a compelling collective illusion.

And?

[Bucky Ball]

As we all know from the study of Anthropology, there are no moral behaviors which are general and universal.
For example the Hebrews practiced child sacrifice, (there is at least one example in the Bible). Your premise is false.

Your OP is refuted easily by Euthyphro's Dilemma "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
and by Epicurus, "“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him Gog"

You're welcome.

Your arrogant mike-drop was a bit premature. The dilemma ignores the third alternative which is this: God is identical to the Good and to be good is to participate in that divine nature.

You're welcome.

Nope. (Speaking of arrogant, telling Euthyphro he ignored an important point). LOL That's covered in BOTH Euthyphro and Epicurus ... it's why I posted both. Read them again.
A real god can't "be identical" to only a portion of Reality. It means there are external definitions which are necessary to define your god, eternally It's meaningless. How is "good" defined, and where did evil come from, if your god is eternally (only) "good" ? Why is any distinction necessary ? Was it "good" *along with* evil or did "good" begin when evil was defined ?

(You're welcome).

[The Grand Nudger]

Absurdly and lazily false. You know better, but it didn’t stop you from saying it.

I see you cannot be bothered to write a constructive response.

Honestly, what would the point be? To pretend that we’ve never had so very….very…..very many conversations on this subject? To point out that the source of our moral sense is ultimately irrelevant to the multiple possible metaethical positions? You already know this, and I don’t think a constructive conversation can be had with someone who insists on blurting -pure garbage- out in bad faith.

[Deesse23]

False dichotomy.
Other species of apes also show morality, aka. sense of right and wrong.

Which proves my point.

No it does not. Your point was that 

our judgements of right and wrong are biological instincts particular to our species

Other apes than homo sapiens also show these signs, and they are other species, another genus even.

https://www.biologyonline.com/wp-content...iagram.jpg