Morality is given by the biblical God

Therefore, I will state my main argument here, in the second round. I will try to mime my opponents structure because I am not fully versed on proper format. Hopefully this will be informative and a learning experience. Main Argument: P1: Morality is a result of the evolution of social creatures. P2: What is moral varies across many cultures and populations, even seemingly affecting other species. C: Objective morality does not exist For my arguments, when relevant and referring to "God" I am generally assuming the Christian God. P1: Morality is a result of the evolution of social creatures. Morals Survive Evolution is dependent on survival. Survival of a population is largely dependent upon reproductive success. With social populations there is a general reliance on other members of the population. To put it simply, the well-being of one can directly affect the well-being of another, and even of the group. There is a necessity for survival that individuals function in a manner that is beneficial, or at least neutral to others in the group. Moral grounding This simple concept is a basis for what we understand as morality, or moral behavior. This is not objective, but based on situations that lead to survival; so subjective. The behaviors that benefit the group are not static, as they change as the environment changes, as pressures on the population change. It is not a far reach to understand that conditions that influence our behavior, influence our perception. The evolution of consciousness, of mind lends voice or image to these perceptions. Pack Mentality If a wolf pack relied on the pack to stalk and take down their prey, it could be understood how an under performer, or even an outcast would be a serious liability to the group. If one wolf rushed out, teeth barred and howling; well the prey would have a great chance to escape, and the pack would suffer from hunger. Similarly, if a member of a small society did not participate, or if they out right infringed on the well-being of others, through murder, rape, theft, etc. .. It is natural to think of this leading to a moral stance. Eventually an accepted behavior, eventually even a law. The process would be similar to different populations but with different stresses, different behaviors would be expected. In various societies we see differences in these "moral" stances. Some cultures engage in relations with children, some are pro incest, in some situations it can even be understood why rape would be an acceptable behavior in a group if the desire to survive was pitted against the available breeding population or lack there of, necessitating a visit to a neighbor, a competing culture. Today this type of behavior is unacceptable, and "wrong", yet that is a developmental moral, and one not accepted by all populations. P2: What is moral varies across many cultures and populations. I would assume that Pro would not argue for objective morality for animals, yet we have witnessed animals working together, helping each other and even exhibiting what appears to be altruistic behavior. Certainly animals cannot have objective morality? But if they could, you would be hard pressed to define what those objective morals were. Rape and incest are common in many species, in fact I'm sure we could say in many situations it seems that anything goes. The fact is, we see developed behaviors in humans and animals. We see a varying sense of right and wrong, just as would be expected if morals evolved alongside various cultures. But you may ask 'Isn't there anything that we would consider a moral truth? Something that is objectively moral? Well, pro advised us in his main argument that "objective" is independent of peoples opinion. So it doesn't matter what you think, it's just right, or it's just wrong. But ask yourself why we would even think that? Right and wrong are entirely, and necessarily based on what we think. If not at the individual level, than at the group level. Why do we have laws? What good to they serve? These questions, I suggest, have roots in what is beneficial to our survival. I believe it is obvious that my descriptions through P1 and P2 are merely an outline. A basis, or an idea that are not the entirety of our source for morals. Individually we develop gradually more sophisticated morals based on our experiences and the way we process them and the way they affect us. C: There is no Objective Morality So, if you would consider. .. We do not have objective morality and therefore conclude god exists, we conclude god exists and then need to postulate an objective morality. The inconsistency in this is the possibility that we do not have objective morality. Claiming such is like claiming a god. You believe it therefore it is true. But just as objective is independent of peoples opinions, without opinion there would be no designation. To be good or bad, right or wrong, you need a method to measure such. Postulating god as a measure is illogical as the only data to add to this ruler comes from what believers opined was the mind and method of god. It is a much less complex idea, and simplistic argument to assume that our behaviors which are the foundation for our morals are descended from a basic need of survival in a social animal. The resulting "morality" is further developed through our experiences both personal and in society. This is further strengthened by witnessing the behavior in other social animals and that of not to distant related species. If a god is needed for objective morality, Pro would need to demonstrate an objective source for god. If there is no objective truth of god, then objective morality is unfathomable. Any claim of god must come from a believer in that god and therefore is subjective. It is opinion of the believer. God is not a fact, and therefore not a good reason to propose objective morality.