The origin of human morality is an omnipotent god

As you have pointed out, this argument is really an argument of whether or not god exists, just focused on the morality argument that many theists take. My argument will go somewhat like this: 1 .Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. (This does not mean that humans do not sometimes do evil things.) 2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one. (By atheistic view of reality, I mean a view of reality that does not involve a deity.) 3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation. 4.Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct. While this argument assumes that there are objective values, you have stated yourself that there are many objective values in this world. No one can be a consistent subjectivist, I am glad you do not believe in that. Also morality must come from an authority either: 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. Is there really Moral Authority? In preparation that you might argue that there is no moral authority, I will say that there needs to be moral authority in order for there to be some degree of objective morality. However, if these moral authorities are bound to desire and want, then there is no moral standard on which desires can be judged. If there is a desire to feed the hungry, I would be stating something about my own wants and desires, nothing else. First: Man is innately good, that goodness is instilled by an all-powerful god. I disagree with the above statement. I would say that man is innately bad, however, watched over by an omnipotent creator. This god gave us a conscience in order so that we could know what was right, but obviously gave us the free will to do wrong if we choose to do so. Therefore, I do not take this route in my argument. Which god figure best embodies this objective moral truth? Maybe you should change the title of the argument to, "The origin of morality is an omnipotent god or system of gods". Whatever really floats your boat, I am simply arguing that there needs to be a god (or system of gods for that matter) in order for there to be the system of morals by which we live by. The moral teachings of any external authority are compared against one's own moral judgement before action. I believe the Bible does not have pertinence in this argument, as I am simply talking about the existence of a deity as a whole. A single religious text does not rule out the possibility that there was an ultimate causer who created the system of morals by which we live by. However, I will address the Bible briefly. You mention the advocacy of slavery in the Bible. Slaves during biblical times in that area were treated very differently than slaves in the 19th century. Slavery was not associated with racism at all, and slaves lived no different than that of a lower class worker at the time. Penalties for slave trading are specified in the Mosaic Law (see Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7), and it is frequently mentioned by Greek writers as a crime. You also mention the 10 Commandments as not mentioning the moral problems that we as modern people think of. However, you have to consider the context of when God created these commandments. The Jews had just been worshiping a golden calf, so of course the commandment, "No graven images or likenesses" was at the forefront of God's mind. I would say please research the context of what you are saying. Innate moralities are easily explained from a darwinistic perspective If anything, the fact that dolphins and other animals have created a moral system even more points to a creator. This system needed to be created by something, and it is unlikely that something lacking in reason could have created a system of morals. In this conundrum, I point to a god who is the only person with enough reason and intuition to create such a complex system.