All of these are irrelevant to the question. All you need to show that there is morality without God is to provide evidence of what it is without making reference to God - any of them.
I beg to differ. To prove the point we need to compare the morality your god to the moralities of our modern humane secular societies. It will give us a clear picture as to which moral code appears to be superior.
Rubbish. Given that we are talking about what good is, it is impossible to judge between 'moral codes' according to a moral criteria (hence 'superior'). The only criteria is rationality - i.e. you 'believe' in it because that is what the evidence supports - just like you would argue for God. It is either 'true' or it isn't. If it isn't true, then it is just a set of rules made up by someone and neither better or worse than any other set of rules made up by anyone else.
If you think a particular moral code is true, bring the evidence.
In addition, it is clear that there is no such think as 'the morality of a modern humane secular society'. The closest you could come to that might be the written law but that is probably the one thing that almost no-one believe captures their morality. Societies consist of many individuals from many backgrounds with many different opinions on what is moral and what is not. There is no shared moral code at all.
If you and I agree that it is wrong to kill someone, we don't share a moral code, we share a moral opinion on one particular behaviour. You might believe that it is wrong because it doesn't achieve your particular goal for society. I might believe that it is wrong because God said so. While there is overlap on this one issue, these differing goals result in vastly different moral judgements in other areas. Unless you can provide evidence that a particular goal is the 'true' one there are no grounds for claiming that the resulting moral code is true.
Secondly, there is no modern secular society where the law has not been heavily influenced by people who held theistic belief so it is false to call the resulting law purely 'secular' in the sense that it is uninfluenced by belief in God. It is only 'secular' in the sense that it might not (although it often does) give preference to a particular set of metaphysical beliefs.
Similarities in behavioural patterns wouldn't change that.
Yes it does, becuse it shows humans develop and evolve behaviourally in the same way regardless of religion or culture. These behavioural patterns reflect the morality of their society.
Children demonstrate concern for the wellbeing of others long before they learn to read or are old enough to understand indoctrination from their parents. We as a social animal have evolved with certain traits that determine our morals.
This can be scientifically proven to show no scripture is required to force morals onto people. And hence it does exist by shear human intuition.
Which was never my argument. I argued that without God, morality does not exist. The point isn't whether you can make people behave a certain way (which would be an argument from consequences anyway) or what might happen if people realise that morality doesn't really exist but whether there is any reason for classifying people's behaviour as either right or wrong.
What you have described is a lot of people behaving in lots of different ways and some of them agreeing that some behaviour is 'right' and some 'wrong'. They, like you, are not exempt from providing evidence for their beliefs. Until that happens, all you have is lots of people deluding themselves. A bit like they did for many years about God, right?
Any tendancy to form codes or rules of behaviour wouldn't change that (unless you have some evidence to suggest that a particular code is the 'true' one).
I have always maintained that there is no one true code for all people for all time. Societies decide what is the best morals for themselves for that time.
But then we agree. There is no true morality. Morality is relative to the society you happen to live in and within that society to you as an individual (for societies are made of individuals are then not?). Which is another way of saying, that there is no morality, just a bunch of people with preferences for certain types of behaviour, some of whom are strong enough to enforce their preferences on the rest of the people they live with. Behaviour isn't 'right' or 'wrong' as such, it is just either liked or disliked by yourself and other people.
Tell me, was the punishment laid down by Yahweh to stone non-virgin brides to death moral? If it was and there is only one true moral then it should still apply today, shouldn't it. What about the moral of a father selling his raped virgin daughter to the rapist? It must have been moral back then because Yahweh laid down that law. Should it still be true now?
You are so much more comfortable talking about Christianity, aren't you? We did this before. Read the thread.
That is why I need to know if you think it is possible for our intuition to evolve to form ever improving codes or rules of behaviour.
Until we know what the goal is, we have no way of knowing if it is 'improving' or not. If we had evidence for a particular goal, we would have our morality! It is a statement of blind faith from you that you think it is 'improving' unless you can provide evidence that it is.
Topic: Readings from the "Holy Book"