Moral Argument for God

Yes, very much so. Far, far too complex to have been designed. The hyper-creative processes of selection and mutation are the only possible explanation for that level of intense complexity. Not only possible, the only rational conclusion. Since intelligence isn't up to the task then the best alternative is the only processes known to be more creative than intelligence - selection and mutation.

Not at all. We do everything for ourselves. The firemen do it to prove they are good firemen.

I think you missed the defenition in the post: In other words to sacifice your self for the good of others is altruistic. This says nothing of the motavation. I don't think this is the case with all firemen, I know a fireman actually and he does it because he sincearly likes to help people. Now you could say that he does it cuz it makes him feel good, but hey, to me that dosn't make it any less altruistic.

Yes it does. All motives are selfish.

It depends what you mean by selfish. If you mean chiefly concerned with self preservation/gratification I would disagree.If you mean sacrficing onself for the group makes the individual "feel right" or "feel good", ya I suppose you could say that was selfish. But on a practical level, the action is not selfish. Since, the person's self is likely not going to be around vey much longer

The point is the philosophical level, not the practical.

Agreed to some extent.If I understood my Aquinas properly, the existence of moral principles that are basic to human society, per se, can be demonstrated purely through the application of human reason.The existence of such principles, in and of themselves, is not sufficient evidence to conclude there is (or isn't) a God.WHY they exist in the first place, well, that's another matter.So the criticism often heard from fundamentalists that atheists/agnostics can't have, or subscribe to, moral principles, really is not a fair argument.The fact that "Do unto others" (the Golden Rule) has appeared in many human societies seems to be evidence for some universal moral principle that is discoverable by human reason. Universal in the sense of cross-cultural, at least. Universal in the sense of transcendent, well, that's another matter.However, I don't think the moral relativist argument that not all societies have the Golden Rule , therefore it is not a universal principle, is a very strong argument.This is like saying that Pythagoras discovered the mathematical theorem that bears his name, and we have evidence that Chinese and Persian mathematicians also discovered it independently, but not all societies discovered it, therefore is is not a valid mathematical theorem.That conclusion just doesn't follow.

Are you then saying that morals are not part of what we are. Morals are something that must be learned. I always thought that the moral argument had to do with the idea that we have morals regardles of what we've been taught. If you were to raise a group of people in a sheltered situation and not tell them about the word of God etc, would they not have morals, then when you teach those people morals will they then become moral? What makes the golden rule a universal principle then? Is it because its in many religions that have managed to gain numbers?

But that's a false analogy. That is NOT what folk are saying at all.A better analogy would be if others had found that there was a set where the sum of the squares formed by the smaller legs of a triangle did not equal the square of the longer leg. In reality what happened is that some societies discovered other formulas that worked as well as the Golden Rule.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What I am getting at is the non-discovery of the GR by a society cannot be a sound argument agains the GR being a valid moral principle. It may merely mean that the society has not developed to the point where this principle is known to be necessary.It would be necessary on your part to demonstrate the existence of non-GR societies of similar complexity to GR societies (that is, societies with complex state forms of government, relatively complex economies, at least Iron Age technology), function as well as GR societies.There have been , for example, Neolithic societies that discovered neither the GR or the Pythagorean theorem that managed to get by without either...for a time...but AFAIK most of these were assimilated (or worse) by GR societies.

I'm arguing that morals are empirically discoverable and therefore not mere abstractions. I'm not making a specifically theistic argument.An isolated group such as this would , I expect, empirically discover certain moral principles, perhaps in many instances "the hard way"...the process might take centuries.

No one has said it is not. But it is not an absolute. In addition, the Golden Rule itself is a relativistic rule. Actually, since the Golden Rule supposedly predates the Iron Age, you are being overly restrictive. In addition, if you look at the history of what Golden Rule societies have done whenthey do come in contact with non-Golden Rule societies, you have to question is the Golden Rule itself is a moral guide.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I haven't proven that it is an absolute (as in being cross-culturally valid), I've presented evidence that it might be. Whether it's routinely violated or not is a separate issue from its intrinsic validity. Whic should work to your advantage in counterargument, a clear application of the GR But you do have a point. Perhaps there are additional rules like "Follow the GR unless circumstances prevent it". This is an argument that the GR is relativistic, as you've stated.

So when complexity reaches a certain level, it is unattainable by intellegence and can only come about by random chance and acidental mutation which prove beneficial to the unit?So is mutation and chance superior to intellegence? How can something that is running on cause and effect be hyper creative?

I think the point would be better made that the human brain is so needlessly and inefficiently organised that no intelligent designer would make it this way. The same can be said for our eyes (eagles eyes, for instance, are FAR superior - some parts of our eyes are actually backwards). How about vestigial organs in the human body? Why would they be included by an intelligent designer?If we were designed by an all-powerful deity, he wasn't a very bright one. It doesn't run on cause an effect. Mutations need no specific "cause," they simply happen durng the reproductive process. Its randomness allows traits to appear that are far too outlandish, inefficient, and complicated for an intelligent designer to ever even WANT to come up with.Ever heard an engineer refer to K.I.S.S.? It stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid." The simpler, more efficient the design, the more reliably and better it will work.What you propose seems to say that God is so smart he looks dumb. That doesn't make sense.