I already gave you the numbers.  Trillions exist with the characteristics needed to create and sustain life.  Trillions.  I don't think you understand the scope of the universe.  Nor are you understanding how long 13.8 billion years is.  That means that trillions of planets have already come and gone.  Not just the trillions that currently exist.

Yes, a nice huge number, but isnt saying much, appearing as murky as the rest of the equation. The parts we know, and what we dont know. And what we figured out so far tells us higher lifeforms are not as common as the myriads of stars and planets suggests.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18734-why-complex-life-probably-evolved-only-once/

Then tell me your " science " , can the science answer all . Even in front of the nature science cannot do anything. 

This is exactly the reason I try to stay out of such "discussions". It is the most used,  dumbest path Ken Ham's stayle creatonists usually take in a debate: "You can't explain everything - hence god did it". It simply shows the complete lack of understanding of how science works and, in a nutshell, what science actually is.

I'm out.

First of all, I never said I was part of a religion because I'm agnostic. Second of all, I am a believer of natural selection, but a circumstance where species can still be here and thrive over the years is extremely lucky. Yes, I will continue to use the word luck because the littlest shit that goes wrong can cause us to not exist. Ever heard of the butterfly effect. And no, if the earth was pulled close to the sun or if there wasn't any fresh water, we would be fucked.  One small change can drastically change the future. Finally, saying there is a creator doesn't mean we ignore science. The United States arguably contributed to science more than any country and we are mostly a Christian nation. Don't let a few clowns make you feel otherwise.

Here is an interesting video I suggest you watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FvYwpyFbIQ. This will discuss the Aristotelian proof of God among other evidence. 

1. Prove objective morals exist.

2. Killing everyone for personal gain is the logical thing to do?  Prove that too.

I have not yet found a convincing counter-argument against the Moral Argument as a proof of God's existence. Granted, I admit I have my own bias since I'm a Christian. We have our own biases anyway but I'm open to hear some different opinions. How would Atheists in this forum counter the moral argument. And please, don't misrepresent the moral argument. I'm not saying that Atheists can not be moral. anyway, below is the argument:

Basically, the argument uses a deductive reasoning (no bible quotes needed)

(1) Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: God exists.

The argument is a very simple one, and can be structured something like this:

1. For an objective moral standard to exist, God must exist
2. An objective moral standard does exist
3. Therefore, God exists

It can also be taken into negative form:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

(2)If we are just in a materialistic reality wherein you are just a clump of atoms that will eventually die and will be rearranged in a different form, what is preventing you from killing everyone for your own benefit and enjoy life to the fullest while you are alive. It is a logical thing to do.

(3)Well, if you counter this argument by saying that morality is subjective, this means that moral codes depends on one's own interpretation. This means that:

1. Nazi people are bad, or
2. Nazi people may think that they are morally right because they are just doing what is best for their own people.

(4)So which is it? Are they bad or good? Where do you base your decision? We all know that they are bad but again, it begs the question. How can an atheist logically call something atrocious, deplorable, evil, or wicked? According to atheism, man is nothing but matter in motion. Humankind allegedly evolved from rocks and slime over billions of years. But who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,” “corrupt chemicals,” or “sinful slime?” People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys. Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young.

(5)Atheists cannot logically condemn the Nazis for objective moral evil, while simultaneously saying that we arose from rocks and rodents. They cannot reasonably rebuke a child molester for being immoral, while at the same time believing that we evolved from slime. Reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective reference point.

(6)You see, confining yourself in just the physical reality of the universe requires you to reject metaphysical concepts such as morality in order to stay true to your argument.

(7)I've watched multiple debates by Atheists, including Dawkins and Hitchens, but when this question is raised, they dodged it and misrepresent the argument. Pity, I actually like them because of their deep thoughts even though I disagree with them.

(8)The fact that all humans agree on the concept of good and evil further justifies the bible's quote regarding God putting morality on our hearts, Romans 2:15. Because if we are just a natural and physical occurence, there is no right or wrong, there is only strong and weak.

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

- Romans 2:15

I have not yet found a convincing counter-argument against the Moral Argument as a proof of God's existence. Granted, I admit I have my own bias since I'm a Christian. We have our own biases anyway but I'm open to hear some different opinions. How would Atheists in this forum counter the moral argument. And please, don't misrepresent the moral argument. I'm not saying that Atheists can not be moral. anyway, below is the argument:

Basically, the argument uses a deductive reasoning (no bible quotes needed)

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: God exists.

The argument is a very simple one, and can be structured something like this:

1. For an objective moral standard to exist, God must exist
2. An objective moral standard does exist
3. Therefore, God exists

It can also be taken into negative form:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

If we are just in a materialistic reality wherein you are just a clump of atoms that will eventually die and will be rearranged in a different form, what is preventing you from killing everyone for your own benefit and enjoy life to the fullest while you are alive. It is a logical thing to do.

Well, if you counter this argument by saying that morality is subjective, this means that moral codes depends on one's own interpretation. This means that:

1. Nazi people are bad, or
2. Nazi people may think that they are morally right because they are just doing what is best for their own people.

So which is it? Are they bad or good? Where do you base your decision? We all know that they are bad but again, it begs the question. How can an atheist logically call something atrocious, deplorable, evil, or wicked? According to atheism, man is nothing but matter in motion. Humankind allegedly evolved from rocks and slime over billions of years. But who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,” “corrupt chemicals,” or “sinful slime?” People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys. Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young.

Atheists cannot logically condemn the Nazis for objective moral evil, while simultaneously saying that we arose from rocks and rodents. They cannot reasonably rebuke a child molester for being immoral, while at the same time believing that we evolved from slime. Reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective reference point.

You see, confining yourself in just the physical reality of the universe requires you to reject metaphysical concepts such as morality in order to stay true to your argument.

I've watched multiple debates by Atheists, including Dawkins and Hitchens, but when this question is raised, they dodged it and misrepresent the argument. Pity, I actually like them because of their deep thoughts even though I disagree with them.

The fact that all humans agree on the concept of good and evil further justifies the bible's quote regarding God putting morality on our hearts, Romans 2:15. Because if we are just a natural and physical occurence, there is no right or wrong, there is only strong and weak.

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

- Romans 2:15

(1) Do objective morals exist? There is no evidence that it does. Personally I don't believe in objective morality. You can have your premises, but there is no foundation for them. 

While I respect your belief, I believe that objective morality exists. While we have thousands of religions around the world, all of them have goals to follow certain rules in order to have peace and order. While they differ in execution, all of them have divine entity as a reference that deter its followers to act on their basic instincts. This divine entity is their objective reference. 

(2) That's correct. There are people out there who are indeed doing this, because there is no one, which they think, who can stop them. 

My point exactly.

(3) And that's actually they case when you look at humanities past and present. Different cultures were created which different laws. How can that not be a part of subjective morality? 

And that's why we compare those moralities and weigh them based on their own rationale, not based on what we think should be right. If there is any inconsistencies to the rationale of the morality of these Religions at their own perspective, then, it's irrational and therefore its laws and morality are invalid.

(4) It's one of these, both and neither depending on how you look at it. There is no moral ground on where you stand.  Good and bad don't exist from a universal point of you. The universe doesn't care. Humans do. For some humans, Nazi's are consider bad and for others humans Nazi's are considered good. If humans would be objective moral and Nazism considered bad, there wouldn't be any Nazi's. If your counter-argument is, well, that's just wrong, than you committing an appeal to emotions which you actually do by your reasoning. 

And where do these concept of right and wrong came from? There is a reason why Psychology is considered not an empirical Science, because for its theories and concepts, it cannot be broken down into quantum level. A physicist can dissect every cell of your body, but only you knows what is on your mind. The point I'm making is, morality and consciousness cannot be created if the only reality is materialistic. 

(5) And that's also going in the direction of an appeal to emotions. I don't believe in objective morality, nor free will, so how do I solve this issue? I can't call them evil, nor immoral. But I can call them a threat to society in which I live in. In order to grow and live peacefully, I cannot permit such actions. So I will condemn them on this basis alone. 

And this is where we differ, you call them threat to society but that is only your opinion. A Nazi officer may think that the Jews are the threat to society. Who are you to decide you are correct and they are wrong? If Nazi Germany had won the war, and US and Europe had been colonized by Germany, we would think that the Nazi is justified in doing those things in the name of peace.

(6) I don't see the problem by doing so. 

Well, then one should not hide under the premise of metaphysical concepts if one is only following materialistic worldview. You can not have a materialistic only reality while believing in Gender Equality and Morality. You cannot have a Naturalistic view and eat your metaphysical cake too. Unless you come up with a quantum mechanics explanation why this concepts exists, a physical reality does not contain morality. 

Since I believe in metaphysics of Morality and other similar concepts, therefore, there is a reality beyond Physical things, at least from my belief.

(7) Example? 

Watch the video. Though in fairness to Hitchens, he appeared to be not in his best form. I believe Dawkins could come up with a better counter argument.

(8) You can't call that a fact if not all humans agree on it like you've already demonstrated in your own argument. You just shot your own argument.

Truth is not based on consensus, so this is a logical fallacy. At some point in time, most of the Scientists believe that electrons evolve in the nucleus. But we all know that is not the case, since it is present like waves in an atom. What I'm pointing out is, I believe in objective morality, rape and other heinous crimes are generally considered bad.