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

[brewer]

NX, have you thought about converting to hinduism? In the long run you might be happier.

[no one]

Hindu gods are false. ( Even though they predate jebus christiboi and "daddy" by a few thousand years.)

[brewer]

Hindu gods are false. ( Even though they predate jebus christiboi and "daddy" by a few thousand years.)

OK, happier but still delusional.

[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.

[Paleophyte]

Arguments are not evidence. Except old, bad arguments which are clear evidence of a lack of originality.

Morality is simply the necessary behaviours of a social species.

And the argument from morality is always hilarious from a deity that couldn't manage commandments against rape, slavery or genocide.

[Deesse23]

And the argument from morality is always hilarious from a deity that couldn't manage commandments against rape, slavery or genocide.

It actually commanded rape, sex-slavery and genocide at its leasure.
Add to that misogyny and incest.
But beware of shrimps and mixed fabric!
What a paragon of morality.

[Disagreeable]

If objective moral values exist, then God exists.

Does not follow.

[no one]

The goodness of god?
Like when god pitted 2 toddlers against the ultimate evil in the universe, then got its knickers in a twist when the toddlers were duped, blamed them, and cursed all the subsequent upright apes?

Even though it knew the outcome long before?

[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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.