Abstract reasoning and God

My opponent seems to be saying I cannot construct a purely analytical (a priori) proof because of the analytic/synthetic distinction. For those who don't know, the analytic synthetic distinction says that there are two kinds of true things Analytic (the meaning of the words show truth): a bachelor is an un married man Synthetic (it is true only if the facts reflect): David Is a bachelor So my opponent is saying that I cannot create a purely analytical proof because there is a difference between analytical and synthetic truths. This doesn't make sense to me. Unless he is saying that I need synthetic truths to create a proof in the first place. While that may be the case, I don't recall saying that my argument had to be purely analytical, just stemming from abstract reasoning. Assuming that we agree on that, here is my argument: Note: take notice that my claim was that a successful argument would be proof beyond reasonable doubt of a God (not necessarily the Christian one, or even a single God) until it was found to be flawed. A) people argue all the time. I will define arguing as trying to show that your position is more right than your opponents. The very act of arguing would be ridiculous unless both men (assuming 2 men are arguing) have the same concept of right and wrong. Example: there would no sense in saying a soccer player had committed a foul unless there was an universal agreement about what makes a foul. We will label this agreement of right and wrong as The Law of Right and Wrong or the "True Morality" or the law of human nature Note: while this is a law, it is not one that describes what we always do (the law of gravity describes what all matter always does when gravity acts on it), it describes what we should do. B) people can choose to ignore this law of human nature. As in, one can choose to do something that by the general agreement of right and wrong, is wrong. Even though they know that they should not do that. C) in all cases other than random oddities, people have agreed on this law of human nature. This is true across space (geographically speaking) and time (historically speaking). Now, I readily admit that there are differences between one civilization and another's morality, but this has never amounted to anything like a total difference. If you take the teachings of all the civilizations around the world and through history, you will see that they are quite similar. No culture has deemed cowardice or treason or patricide or the like as virtues. Men have differed as to how many wives a man can have, but they all agree that a man cannot simply have any woman he wants. All civilizations agree on a common morality, but to varying degrees. D) it is in the nature of a human to believe in this law. You will see that even if a man says he does not believe in a real right and wrong, he will hold you to that standard of right and wrong anyway. For example, even if a man says its ok that he broke his promise to you because there is no real right and wrong, and in his right and wrong that behavior is acceptable, he will feel wronged when you break your promise to him even though he claims that you are held to a different standard. Also, if I were to call a man a liar or a hypocrite or a thief he will either feel the strong desire to prove that he is not in fact those things, or he will rant off a list of excuses, all because he truly believes in this common law of human nature. E) people can be mistaken about the real right and wrong. A man can get his sums wrong but that doesn't mean that the multiplication table is now untrue. He simply made a mistake and he can correct it. The same applies to right and wrong F) humans know that the law of human nature tells them what they should do, but they do Not always do what the law tells them. G) the law of human nature judges between two instincts or impulses. An instinct is an innate, fixed pattern of behavior among animals in response to certain stimuli. Examples are sexual instinct, the instinct for self- preservation, and the herd instinct which compels us to protect our own and our species from outside forces. Now taking the example of the herd instinct, the desire to help someone whether or not you want to or not is not the same thing as the herd instinct. Suppose you are in a situation where there are two instincts competing inside you: Self- Preservation - run away from the fire or you could die Herd Instinct - help the man in the fire The stronger of the two instincts tends to be self preservation, yet we notice that even when we simply imagine that we are in that situation, we know that the "right" choice, what we "should" do, is to help the man. That which judges between the two instincts cannot be either of the instincts. Ex: instincts are keys on a piano and the law is the sheet music. The law tells you what you should play but you can choose to ignore it. H) that which judges between two instincts, the law of human nature, cannot be an instinct at all. If it was an instinct, we should be able to point to an instinct inside us which is always good, always in agreement with the law. There are none. Every instinct is good in some situation and bad in others. Ex: the instinct for sex is good the night of your wedding but bad when it comes to the married man looking at that young girl that looks hot in those pants. Ex2: no notes on the piano are good or bad notes, they are simply correct at some times and incorrect at others. I) the law is not a human convention. This is one of the more important points. The law must fall into one of two categories: 1. Universal truths like mathematics 2. Social conventions like how it is proper to drive on the right side of the road Keep in mind that just because something is taught to us by a teacher or by a parent does not mean its a human convention. Reasons why the law is not a human convention: -There are no major differences between the moralities of civilizations -If you say that while there are no major differences between modern and ancient civilizations, there has been moral progress, then you are comparing the moralities by a standard. You are saying that one morality conforms to that standard or REAL RIGHT AND WRONG better than the other. -What is right is not always convenient and what is wrong is not always inconvenient so we can conclude that what we call right would not always help society. Therefore, society would not create this system because it would not be beneficial to individuals. -while following the moral law would certainly aid society as a whole, the fact that it aids society is not a good explanation as to why we feel as we do about right and wrong. Ex: this is a dialogue that will illustrate my point Me: why should I be unselfish? You: because it is good for society Me: why should I care about what Is good for society unless it affects me personally in a good way? You: because that's being selfish and you shouldn't be selfish By saying that following the moral law you benefit society, you are really only saying that the moral law is the moral law. This is because the moral law consists of benefiting society, so I cannot be a reason for itself. I don't play soccer to score goals, that like saying I play soccer to play soccer because scoring goals is part of what soccer consists of. J) we come to the conclusion that there is a real right and wrong, which all humans know, which we did not invent, which we all believe in yet do not adhere to. It seems that humans have no reason to want this moral law, this nagging reminder to do things that aren't convenient, and yet it is part of our nature and we cannot rid ourselves of it. Its almost as if whatever created humans imbued them with this morality for some purpose, for morality surely does not aid in natural processes. So we have something that made all recorded human civilizations model their values a certain way by in planting this belief of right and wrong in their nature. This right here seems like a creator, for it made us what we are. This seems like a God. My final argument is this: if my long argument above seems correct and proves beyond reasonable doubt that A) there is a real right and wrong, B)humans did not invent this real right and wrong, and C) all humans(aside from rare oddities) have this concept of the true right and wrong in their nature: what follows is that it is necessary for a creator like consciousness or entity -which I will define as a God for all intents and purposes- must exist.