The origin of human morality is an omnipotent god

Thank you for accepting. In general I find there to be a universal/objective moral principle: promote the well-being and flourishing of conscious creatures. However, I do not hold that there is only one possible, absolute expression of this principle. That is to say it is possible to objectively assess though research and study whether a specific moral precept promotes or inhibits well-being and flourishing, but I do not claim to there are any specific precepts that are uniquely true. There may be many possible moral frameworks that promote this general principle.There are two ways support for this might go:First: Man is innately good, that goodness is instilled by an all-powerful god.If the source of humanity's sense of morality were a single, omnipotent god, one would expect to find consistency.This point is rather clear I think by itself, but if morality were innately instilled in man, one would expect to find complete consistency across humanity. That is, consistent moral truths that can be found everywhere. Not just some consistencies, but everything would be consistent.I suspect this is not the route pro will take, so I'll leave it for now, but I'm happy to come back to this point.Second: Man is innately evil, and it takes a divine being to make man behaveWhich god figure best embodies this objective moral truth?The reason I had originally said "Christian god" in the topic was to skirt this problem in the debate. Of course any arguments that involve attributing morality to an external source must not only give evidence for such source existing, but prove that it's from a singular entity and not multiple, for example. Also, with the current wording, why must that being be omnicient? Then you have the problem of proving that god exists AND its will is knowable AND we know it.I personally find the existance of many gods, many religions, and conflicting claims amongst all of them to be evidence enough to reject it as the source of anything, especially morality.The moral teachings of any external authority are compared against one's own moral judgement before action.The examples of filtering are countless in the Christian bible, including the rejection of slavery, wives being subservant to their husbands, and wives needing to be stoned on their father's doorstep if they are not virgins on their wedding night. The fact that we look at biblical texts and view certain moral teachings in a historical context and others as being "the good parts" shows the humanness of moral judgement. Religious followers are actively choosing which parts are true and which are allegory or merely historical.Here's an exercise to demonstrate this (taken from Sam Harris, but the words are mine). Consider the 10 commandments. Do these really represent the most important tennents of morality? Consider the commandment about 'No graven images or likenesses'. Any person could come up with more important moral truths than this one. For example, 'Thou shalt not beat children,' or 'Thou shalt not rape.' The fact that we can, as objectively rational, reasoning humans improve upon the moral teachings of religious dogma shows a capacity for morality that extends beyond that dogma.Morality with the concept of god is cheapened and doesn't represent true morality.One of the key tennents of true morality is doing that which is right, even when no one is looking. To put it in terms of Kohlberg's stages of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_stages_of_moral_development), morality in a religious framework cannot extend beyond stage 1, pre-conventional moral development. That is, actions are driven by the threat of punishment against one's self. True moral reasoning Innate moralities are easily explained from a darwinistic perspective. Morality can easily be explained by Darwinian evolution. Further, behavior that we consider to be moral in humans can be found in other social animals, including in those we don't consider to have any capacity for reasoning or judgement.Animals even demonstrate true altruism, that is, behavior which would on the surface seem to diminish the individual's evolutionary fitness. This ignores kin selection, which itself would express forms of morality, but that is not true altrusim.Examples from http://en.wikipedia.org... Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn whilst the rest feed in case of predator attack. Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe. African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators. Chimps even value fairness: http://www.livescience.com...It should be rather clear that evolutionary pressures are not as simple as promoting the good of an individual. In social creatures like humans, evolution pushes toward altruistic behaviors that we humans label as morality too. No omnipotent god required.There's more to be said on the matter, but I'll end here and see where Pro takes it!