The origin of human morality is an omnipotent god

1. Real moral obligation is a fact. You may have not realized it, but you just affirmed that there is moral obligation in your refutation of my argument. Admitting that there is moral obligation is okay for an atheist to admit. 2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one. Contrary to your belief, a statement is only a false dilemma if there can be more than two choices. However, since the only two choices are, 1) god created morality, or 2) god did not create morality, there are actually only two options in this argument. 3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation. I explained this in the argument below, unfortunately you thought those four choices were the choices for the sources of morality, not the sources of moral authority. I am afraid that you utterly misunderstood my arguments. However, I will copy and paste them again for you and the voters pleasure. 1. From something less than me (nature) This cannot be true, because how can humanity be obligated to something less than ourselves. The practical need for survival is no moral obligation. 2. From me (individual) How does one obligate themselves to be a moral authority? Does one have the right to demand moral obedience from society, or even themselves? 3. From others equal to me (society) What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does the quantity of others necessarily make quality? Is a million people enough to make a relative an absolute truth? 4. From something above me (God) Therefore, this is the only rational explanation for moral authority. Regarding the Source of Morality Since you totally misunderstood my arguments and applied my arguments for moral authority to my arguments for the sources of morality, I will disregard your arguments made in this area. Just so you know, evolution would fall under the category of something less than me, or nature as I have previously stated. Once again: 1 .Real moral obligation is a fact. 2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one. 3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation. 4.Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct. I believe I have supported my third premise in my arguments above, and again assert that moral authority cannot exist without god. The Bible I do not know why you insisted on arguing about the Bible, as that is another argument for another time. Arguing whether or not the Bible has bad things in it or not is pertinent to this discussion. I am arguing that a god created morality, not that the Christian god created morality. I know you like to spend a lot of time on the bad things in the Bible and if you wish to challenge me on that subject after this, please go ahead. However, the Bible has no place in this discussion, and you should be judged accordingly. For all we know, this god could be unknown, with no religious texts written about this god. This must be taken in consideration when going after a particular religious sect in a morality argument. Evolution does not account for our care for other humans. Imagine this situation. A man falls into a fast flowing river and is quickly swept away by the overwhelming current. You do not know this man, and are not even related to him. However, your conscience tells you to jump in and save this man, perhaps even if this man is your enemy. How does this urge come from evolution? It would seem like the humans who would jump in the river to save a stranger would be among the first to die out. Evolution does not account for the fact that we feel this way for other humans. Evolution wants to protect the passing of our genes, but this has no account for why we would jump in to save a random human. Evolution more resembles a system that has no free will, only a system to do what is necessary to help yourself and the passing on of genes. However, a process led by a creator shows a system that started with moral norms and a conscience, but who led creation go on, relying on their own free will to make decisions with a moral conscience guiding them through their complex evolution. If you really look at it, the evolutionist perspective has no account for why we care so much for other humans who are complete strangers and no account for why there is a sense of moral accountability in all of us. Once you look at all of these things, you may find that believing a god created morality is not such a fantastic belief after all. "It was true, I had always realized it- I hadn't any 'right' to exist at all. I had appeared by chance, I existed like a stone, a plant, a microbe. I could feel nothing to myself but an inconsequential buzzing. I was thinking... that here we are eating and drinking, to preserve our precious existence, and that there's nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing." -Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea. It seems as though this belief of evolving unguided by anything does not fall in accordance with the complex moral system that separates us from animals. I would like to thank you for you arguments, and regret that you misunderstood my viewpoints and that you went a little off track in this argument. Nevertheless I have learned a lot from this, and hope that you were enlightened as much as I was about our opposing viewpoints.