Abstract reasoning and God

Thanks to pro for agreeing to debate this topic. From the topic, it appeared that you were attempting a purely analytic proof, but looking at your argument, I can see that your "abstract" proof of God is based on observable evidence (ie observing morality in action) and not pure reasoning. For the sake of argument, I will grant that your example qualifies sufficiently as abstract as it is based on sociological/psychological data rather than data from the physical sciences, although both reference external reality rather than merely logical truths. However, your argument makes unwarranted assumptions and therefore falls into the category of "non sequitur." You assume that it is impossible to have an argument unless both men agree on moral principles, but this is not the case. Conservatives and liberals argue all the time about whether abortion is morally wrong, disproving your point. There are many others, but this is one in which two reasonable and well-meaning people can have a legitimate disagreement. A more substantial problem is the difference between utilitarian morality, which defines morality as an act to provide the most good for the most people, and categorical morality, which defines the morality of an act as an inherent property thereof regardless of the intended or actual consequences. [1] Also, you assume without evidence that there is one "true morality" and claim it is a law. It is also simply not true that all societies believe in the same morals. For example, China condones female infanticide, while America sees it as an abomination. The author of the Hebrew Bible considered eating shellfish to be an abomination, but most religions do not. [2] These are just a few of many counterexamples to your point. You then begin to discuss instincts. You claim that universal morality is that which judges between competing instincts. However, this is false. Firstly, it assumes that at least one of these instincts is moral, which it may not be. Secondly, it is our conscious mind that chooses not between instincts but between choices, taking into account instincts. It is true that the conscious mind is not an instinct, but morality (at least if it is based on emotion) most certainly is. Finally, you have not yet defined what is or is not moral, so I cannot say whether your examples would be moral according to your framework. According to some people, it's fine to have sex with as many people as you want, and while I personally disagree, I assume the "Law of Morality" is wiser than I. Now we come to the interesting part. Where did morality come from? The answer is that human behaviors are largely determined by our evolutionary past. Modern sociologists and psychologists now believe that morality is a product of evolution. [3] By helping maintain stable families and later societies, the "morality genes" helped preserve themselves. This implied that morality is a human convention. There is no need to invoke God when science will do the trick. Finally, even if science could not explain the existence of a moral instinct, there would still be no need to believe in God. A Dao or Brahman ( ie universal soul) would explain it just as well without any personal deity. In conclusion, there are a lot of unwarranted assumptions and non sequiturs in your argument that render it fallacious and unusable. Vote con because pro has failed to furnish a fallacy free argument. Sources 1- http://joshuawilliams1992.wordpress.com... 2 - Leviticus 11:12 3- http://m.psychologytoday.com...