Since there are, now two definitions for good, both provided by me (Christians know better than to provide clear definitions), that could cause confusion. That is great for those who want to believe in God, but I prefer to promote the belief in reality. Hence I declare what definition I will be using, unless otherwise specified :
Good : whatever promotes human flourishing.
1) How does your personal experience mean that it is the same for everyone?[11] What aversions to definitions do you talk about? Please specify.[12]
This is no different to accusing atheists to have a desire not to believe in God.[13] What peoples desires are have nothing to do with the truth.
3) Where have i been outraged?[14]
4) There is a stack of evidence. KCA, Teleological argument, Moral argument, Historicity of Jesus Christ.[15]
[11] It does not.
[12] Christian aversion to clear definitions. I am sure that by now you have noticed that you have yet to provide a clear definitions for ambiguous concepts.
[13] There may be no difference to you, but I base my beliefs on evidence. I have no evidence that atheists desire not to believe in God. Hence, if I were to claime so, I would be lying.
[14] You have not been, but you could have been offended by my theory and have provided clear definitions to undermine it. You didn't. Why might that be ? 
[15] The problem with that claim in this context is that it does not provide an explanation for the Christian aversion for clear defintions. Let's see :
Christians have a stack of evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore, Christians avoid providing clear definitions.
That is a ridiculous theory. I like mine better.
5) Motive or purpose?[16]
6) That is the point. A man made definiton, does not make it true/factual.[17]
7) Nonsense.[18] It is no different to a person defining black people as superheroes[19] and then if a person disagrees with that makes them wrong because they have been defined that way.[20] Just because black people are defined that way, does not make it so in reality now does it?[21]
"a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter"
[16] Sorry, but I don't understand your question.
[17] Oh. I thought you were arguing against naturalism. Your point appears a red herring. This section of the forum ought to be about the moral argument for the existence of God, not about whether man-made definitions are true. It is also a straw man, as it suggests that have claimed otherwise.
[18] I have supported my conclusion with an argument. If you can find a flaw in my argument, feel free to point it out.
[19] Of course there is a difference. Your definition for black people would be in most circumstances a bad one, as it is contradictary to how people understand black people, which is in most circumstances a clear enough concept, even when no definition is provided.
[20] You are mistaken. Disagreeing with a definition does not make one wrong.
[21] There are three nebulous concepts (black people, that and so) and an ambiguous verb (make) in your question, so your question is ambiguous, but I suspect that indeed, it doesn't.
There is no refusal.
Gods nature is the GOOD and his commands FLOW from his nature.[22]
That is any acts that are committed in accordance with his commands are good/right and any acts that are contrary to his nature are deemed evil/wrong.
[22] The GOOD has not been defined. We both know why. 
Based on our my second definition, it could be defined as follows :
The GOOD the set of behaviours that are in accordance with God's nature.
Your claim then becomes :
'Gods nature is the set of behaviours that are in accordance with God's nature and his commands flow from his nature.'
That does not tell is anything about God's nature and consequently about the GOOD. That leaves plenty of room for ignorance. And since ignorance is God's dwelling, Christians like it.
9) Gods nature is the good and his commands flow from his nature. This is a core Christian belief.[23] That is, good/evil are not man made terms but exist independent of all human and are true regardless of what humans think of them.[24]
10) Of course you have, the goal is creaturely flourishing.[25]
[23] OK, so those are beliefs, not definitions. So you do not provide clear definitions.That makes sense if you want to promote God-belief.
I am still waiting for your superior non-man-made definitions. I suspect I will be waiting for a long time. 
[24] You appear to lack understanding of linguistics, which is great for God-belief. I will try to reduce the space available to your god a little :
Language makes use of terms and concepts. A concept is (simplified) a part of reality. Those who use language (humans) label concepts, i.e. give them names, like 'good' and 'evil'. Those who use/make language also decide which parts of reality (the corresponding concepts) those terms refer to. So they give a description of the concept, called a definition. It is the users/makers of the language who decide what term to attribute to what concept, if any. In other words, language is conventional. If there is no agreement, there is no language.
For most real concepts (say a planet) it is clear that they exist without humans defining or labeling anything. But humans decided what constitutes a planet (if it is not round, it is not a planet) and what to call it (a planet). For example, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union (all humans) decided that Pluto is not a planet. Hence, Pluto ceased being a planet, just because people decided so.
Hence, if, as you claim, the terms good and evil are not man-made, who made them ? God ? Aliens ? Dolphins ?
The concepts these terms refer to may exist independently of any decision, but humans decided, which parts of reality to label as good and which part as evil. And they did a bad job at it. Hence all the confusion. Hence the delight of the fans of the god-of-the-gaps argument.
[25] The goals I have are irrelevant. The assumptions I have made are. If I have inappropriately assumed human flourishing to be good (in stead of having defined good as that what promotes human flourishing), please point out where I have done so.
Where did i say i dislike naturalism?[26] Show me where? Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive and flourish.
[26] I have not said you have said you disliked naturalism. You expressed dislike by criticizing it. Read your previous posts. Many wannabe God-believers would be happy to conclude from the inconvenience of naturalism that it must be false.
Many atheists have confused with using the words like/dislike/want/desire/prefer/dont want with right and wrong.[27]
What a person likes/wants/prefers does not not make it right.
If people want and have a desire to survive and flourish, it does not mean that they ought to. Therefore, under naturalism, morality is just a man made construct.[28] Essentially a game where setting in rules and laws to achieve that goal like a game.
Consider baseball again. Society A's rules are that if you hit the ball you run aroung the bases in an anti clockwise direction.
Society B's rules are that if you hit the ball you run aroung the bases in a clockwise direction.
Which society is right or wrong? Well, neither are.
Which is what morality is under naturalism.
Scoeity A has determined it is wrong to harm homosexuals.
Society B (ISIS) has determined it is right to blind fold homosexuals, take them to the top of buildings and throw them off.
Which society is right or wrong?[29]
You say society A is right according to your definition, yet according to society B, there definition is right.[30]
This is why moral relativism is incoherent,[31]
because as shown in the above example, 2 contradictory views cannot be right and wrong at the very same time.[32]
It leads to a violation off the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.
[27] No doubt many have. Few people understand morality.
[28] Not so fast. The concept may have existed before, but choosing it and giving that concept a name had to be done by humans. Planets existed before humans were around. Thanks to the IAU planets can also be a source of confusion : Was Pluto a planet before there were humans ?
[29] You asked the same question after your baseball example and you answered it. Why don't you do so now ? Is it that you dislike the answer ?
[30] You are mistaken, for I have not provided definitions for right and wrong. In addition, definitions are neither right nor wrong. Also, presumably societies A and B are using different definitions for those concepts.
[31] I don't see how that follows. You will need to flush out your argument more.
[32] I will assume you meant : “2 contradictory views cannot be right at the very same time.” and with right you mean true/correct.
I doubt moral relativism claims otherwise. Anyway, I see no problem with naturalism, except perhaps its inconvenience. Naturalism doesn't violate the law of non-contradition.
"You still haven't answered my questions."
Such as?
Those from post 3 :
Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?
"So, there are theories about what the moral argument form the naturalist is, but none of those theories are grounded. Then you claim that that mysterious argument hinges entirely on the premise of creatures flourishing.
I doubt you can prove that and even if you could, so what ?”
WHAT? It is your argument that hinges on creaturely flourishing.
I am not aware having made such argument. Please point it out to me.
Since there are, now two definitions for good, both provided by me (Christians know better than to provide clear definitions), that could cause confusion. That is great for those who want to believe in God, but I prefer to promote the belief in reality. Hence I declare what definition I will be using, unless otherwise specified :
What is reality? That universes can come into existence from nothing? Life can come from non life? Rationality comes from non rationality?
Good : whatever promotes human flourishing.
Why is human flourishing good/right? Says who? Who made that definition? Why is it anymore right than a definition that states the opposite?
What humans like and want does not make that thing right or good.
11] It does not.
[12] Christian aversion to clear definitions. I am sure that by now you have noticed that you have yet to provide a clear definitions for ambiguous concepts.
[13] There may be no difference to you, but I base my beliefs on evidence. I have no evidence that atheists desire not to believe in God. Hence, if I were to claime so, I would be lying.
[14] You have not been, but you could have been offended by my theory and have provided clear definitions to undermine it. You didn't. Why might that be ?

[15] The problem with that claim in this context is that it does not provide an explanation for the Christian aversion for clear defintions. Let's see :
Christians have a stack of evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore, Christians avoid providing clear definitions.
That is a ridiculous theory. I like mine better.
11) So why mention it?
12)No, i do not.
13) I also base my beliefs on evidence.
14) Under naturalism, human flourishing is neither right, wrong, good or evil.
15) Please illustrate where Christians do not provide clear examples.
"That is a ridiculous theory. I like mine better."
What you LIKE does not make it right.
"[16] Sorry, but I don't understand your question.
[17] Oh. I thought you were arguing against naturalism. Your point appears a red herring. This section of the forum ought to be about the moral argument for the existence of God, not about whether man-made definitions are true. It is also a straw man, as it suggests that have claimed otherwise.
[18] I have supported my conclusion with an argument. If you can find a flaw in my argument, feel free to point it out.
[19] Of course there is a difference. Your definition for black people would be in most circumstances a bad one, as it is contradictary to how people understand black people, which is in most circumstances a clear enough concept, even when no definition is provided.
[20] You are mistaken. Disagreeing with a definition does not make one wrong.
[21] There are three nebulous concepts (black people, that and so) and an ambiguous verb (make) in your question, so your question is ambiguous, but I suspect that indeed, it doesn't."
16) I dont understand yours either.
17) Man made definitions does not make it true/right.
18)Your argument has a flaw from the very beginning where you equated goodness with flourishing. Please explain why under naturalism flourishing is good without appealing to peoples wants and desires.
19) Are you going to provide a response to my example or shy away from it?
20) A man made definition does not make it right either.
21) Please provide a rebuttal to my example.
[23] OK, so those are beliefs, not definitions. So you do not provide clear definitions.That makes sense if you want to promote God-belief.
I am still waiting for your superior non-man-made definitions. I suspect I will be waiting for a long time.

[24] You appear to lack understanding of linguistics, which is great for God-belief. I will try to reduce the space available to your god a little :
Language makes use of terms and concepts. A concept is (simplified) a part of reality. Those who use language (humans) label concepts, i.e. give them names, like 'good' and 'evil'. Those who use/make language also decide which parts of reality (the corresponding concepts) those terms refer to. So they give a description of the concept, called a definition. It is the users/makers of the language who decide what term to attribute to what concept, if any. In other words, language is conventional. If there is no agreement, there is no language.
For most real concepts (say a planet) it is clear that they exist without humans defining or labeling anything. But humans decided what constitutes a planet (if it is not round, it is not a planet) and what to call it (a planet). For example, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union (all humans) decided that Pluto is not a planet. Hence, Pluto ceased being a planet, just because people decided so.
Hence, if, as you claim, the terms good and evil are not man-made, who made them ? God ? Aliens ? Dolphins ?
The concepts these terms refer to may exist independently of any decision, but humans decided, which parts of reality to label as good and which part as evil. And they did a bad job at it. Hence all the confusion. Hence the delight of the fans of the god-of-the-gaps argument.
[25] The goals I have are irrelevant. The assumptions I have made are. If I have inappropriately assumed human flourishing to be good (in stead of having defined good as that what promotes human flourishing), please point out where I have done so.
24) Under naturalism, the words good and evil are man made and cannot be grounded. Who defines what is good or evil?
25) LOL you already stated the goal is flourishing and now you are saying it is irrelevant?
"[26] I have not said you have said you disliked naturalism. You expressed dislike by criticizing it. Read your previous posts. Many wannabe God-believers would be happy to conclude from the inconvenience of naturalism that it must be false."
So if you criticise something you emotionally dont like it?
"[27] No doubt many have. Few people understand morality.
[28] Not so fast. The concept may have existed before, but choosing it and giving that concept a name had to be done by humans. Planets existed before humans were around. Thanks to the IAU planets can also be a source of confusion : Was Pluto a planet before there were humans ?
[29] You asked the same question after your baseball example and you answered it. Why don't you do so now ? Is it that you dislike the answer ?
[30] You are mistaken, for I have not provided definitions for right and wrong. In addition, definitions are neither right nor wrong. Also, presumably societies A and B are using different definitions for those concepts.
[31] I don't see how that follows. You will need to flush out your argument more.
[32] I will assume you meant : “2 contradictory views cannot be right at the very same time.” and with right you mean true/correct.
I doubt moral relativism claims otherwise. Anyway, I see no problem with naturalism, except perhaps its inconvenience. Naturalism doesn't violate the law of non-contradition."
27) Correct
28) Humans describe it. You are attempting to PRESCRIBE it.
29) Show me why one set of rules is more right than the other.
30) Except you did, You have equated right/goodness with flourishing.
31) ??
32) It is not an inconvenience. Please provide a rebuttal to my illustration.
"Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?"
Why are you twisting my words?
Objective means something is true/right regardless of anyones views on it. What does it have to do with it always existing?
The shape of the earth is an objective fact. It is spherical regardless of what anyones views are on it.
"I am not aware having made such argument. Please point it out to me."
Naturalistic views on morality cannot be grounded.