Morality does not require the existence of a god

- I must begin by thanking Rickenbacker 4001 for a well thought-out argument. I will argue each point individually, just as it was presented. I agree that morality is always evolving in the sense that it is being more and more defined by humankind. However,my argument is this: the idea of morality and morality itself would not exist without a god. To clarify, I am speaking of god in the way that all gods of every culture would be included. And for a bit of a reciprocal argument: The claim that morality was "not" given to men by some god outside of them is also disprovable. 1. While the definitions of good and evil are not spelled out so effectively by other animals, they do have a code of conduct which they are governed by. The idea that a lion killing a lamb would not be considered evil is only true if that action affects no other animals. If lion(B) goes hungry because of the lion(A) that ate the lamb, then lion(B) would likely think the act "bad". Morality is defined as "a code of conduct put forward by society". Whether or not that society is human matters not at all and would also differ from society to society. For example, the morality of a pack animal would differ greatly from the morality of a solitary one. 2. Insofar as there are no inherently evil actions, I tend to agree; with the exception of the golden rule. I put forward that it is inherently evil to all rational persons, that breaking the golden rule is in every circumstance evil to that individual person. Additionally, the golden rule or at least a form of said rule has appeared in virtually all religious texts including some of the earliest societal rules to include the Code of Hammurabi (purportedly given to him by the patron god of Babylon named Marduk). 3. Saying that all of the immutable laws of omniscient and omnipotent gods have been left behind, I disagree. While our modern day society has gone much further in the definition of morality, it has not changed in that people continue to adjust their interpretation of those laws. For example, while the bible does not specifically say, "do not commit rape" it does say, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.(Matthew 7-12 ESV)" This clearly states that if I do not wish to be raped then I should not rape others. We modern day humans have simply elaborated where elaboration should be unnecessary. 4. The fundamental concepts of morality that have been observed in other higher mammals sound very much like instincts that allow the survival of a species. It has been seen in higher mammals (chimpanzees) that are raised away from the wild that will reject their own children simply because they have not been a part of the society from which they originate. My final point is that the earliest codes of conduct that have been unearthed, "The Code of Ur-Nammu", the aforementioned "Code of Hammurabi" and several others in the same time frame have all been attributed from their authors to have come from a god. Therefore, without these initial laws that were given by god, and subsequent laws given by god(s) later, morality as we know it would have no basis for existence short of that which further perpetuates the existence of our species. I look forward to your response. "The Definition of Morality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu...;. Matthew 7-12 ESV