Moral Argument for God

Before you say that 'universal morality' would disappear, how about showing that it exists to begin with?

I don't think that is the case.. However, there is a big differnece between life (a self replicating self catalyzing set of chemical reactions), and a cpu.The CPU analogy you used is not valid, since a computer is not self replicating. The chemicals that make up life are. Therein lies the difference.

It could be.There, of course, is no evidence that it is. It also is totally unneeded for there to be an 'intellence' behind those algorthims.. they stand on their own, naturally.You can keep on pushing back, and saying 'what if , what if'. Some things can never be either proven or disproven. Most of those are just totally unneeded.

Well, that is a number of strawman arguments. First of all, it is assuming that since there is no absolute moral authority (i.e. god), then there are no reasons for morality. That of course is incorrect.Next, it assumes that an atheist would accept the actions of Hitler. Considering that Hitler used Jesus and Christainity as justifications for his actions against the Jews, that is highly ironic.Do you think if you didn't have God looking over your shoulder to keep you moral, you would be going out and doing all sorts of immoral things, like rape, murder and stealing?

WHy would you think that it would be evidence of a far greater super creativity than our own?Where did that 'super creativity' come from? What mechanism is in place for this supercreativity to impliment it's designs?

That sounds like a very vague criteria. I don't think that 'conciousness' has been defined very well. Nor, do I think that the link between 'conciousness' and 'morality' has been made except in a metaphysical sort of way.If non-human species can be demonstrated to act morally, how does that affect the 'moral arguement for god'. If a non-human species can not be determined to act morally, how does that affect that arguement?If a naturalistic method can be shown to be able to produce morality, how would that be evidence for a god one way or another?It looks to me like the whole arguement is taking a bunch of what ifs,
then saying 'Those assumptions demonstrate god'. There are too many assumptions that are unprovable to have that as a valid arguement, IMO. I don't see how you can demonstrate that there IS an objective morality. Before you can have morality be an arguement for a deity, you ahve to first demonstrate that objective morality exists, then you have to provide a way to show that the specific morality is object, but it could not have developed naturally.

Actually, no it doesn't. It is the exact opposite of it being sense.The assumptions are you making are very circular, and , totally unneded as far as I am concerned.