The fact is that we already have the Universe and its laws and the whole thing fits together without the need for an underlying supernaturalistic agency. So that's just creating an "entity" where there is none to be seen which violates Occam's Razor, which is in layman's terms "Keep It Simple, Stupid.".

Now the problem with the Moral Argument is, again, it takes an already existing thing and tries to graft God onto it, Ethics is a creation of a pagan culture from the fourth century B.C. The Theist, especially Christian, tries to graft his system onto that. Ethics was founded by the Greek philosophers. The Christians merely adopted and adapted it. The problem is that it does not solve the problem. Let us look at this closer. Now we know that non-Christians have argued the problems of right and wrong so it is not unique to Christianity. We further know that the major force in ethical thought, Aristotle, had a very different ethical system and moral view than the Christian one that eveloved in a different place and time. Therefore "morality" is outside the scope but included in theistic thinking and that the original ethical system, founded on logical grounds, was dissimilar to the Judeo-christian one.

Now if the Theist tries to posit that God was "acting through" the Greeks, he still has to show that God exists. This relies on the fallacy of using the conclusion in the proof.

Beyond that, is morality for God or Man? Well, God knows all and therefore does not need to learn right from wrong. He already knows it. Besides that God is so structured that for Him to want something is for it to happen. Man needs to learn the difference. So morality is for Man, by his nature. Therefore it has to be that morality is for Man, not God. Now the Theist might say, "But God created Man and..." Well, that's the same fallacy as before (using the conclusion in the proof).

Worse, and this is where the atheistic position is superior: If the attempt to prove the existance of God fails then it takes morality with it. The atheistic position can recognize that Man qua Man needs, by nature, whether or not there is a God or gods, to make the distinction, if for no other reason, to prevent the whole world from falling into chaos. Did you ever notice that the Marxist and Christan moral positions are nearly identical and incompatible with the Aristotelian ethics?

At its root, the Moral Argument seeks to reverse the order of the Universe, whether or not God exits. Ethics is not an irreducible primary (there's that term again). It is derived from the only two irreducible primaries in Philosphy; Metaphysics and Epistemology. This tries to use the derived to generate it's precursor and treats Ethics as the irreducible primary and Metaphysics (existence) as the derived subject: Bass-ackwards. So we know it is false right out of the box.

Another argument to watch out for is that God is a "force" like gravity. This is so that the Theist does not have to defend some of the mumbo-jumbo that anyone with a half-ounce of brains would reject out of hand. In short, the Theist is bac-peddling. It is clear from the Theist texts that God or gods are entities, not "forces". By de-entitizing God. the Theist can, when confronted with things like "Thou Shalt not suffer a witch to live..." say, "Well, that's not the God I beilieve in" or "That's the Old Testiment and..."

The answer to the first is "Every time I show something to be foolish or evil you say 'That is not the God I believe in'. Well you can't define a thing by telling me what it is not, only by telling me what it is. what is the God you believe in and how does it square with what is said in the text?" and to the second "Then I take it that the Ten Commandments are no longer in force or are obsolete..." Then you can say that he's cherry picking though the Old Testament to fit his wants. I actually heard a female Episcopal Minister, when confronted with someting uncomfortable say "What are you going to believe; God or the Bible?".