How do you figure? Was cowardice lauded last century? Murder celebrated? Hatred a cause for joy and heroism a cause for hate? Was was completely immoral 50 years ago that is completely moral now, or vice versa?
Generally there were a lot more violence and killing, whether it was because of lack of acceptance (race, sexuality, disorder, health, differing opinions), or because it was deemed acceptable to kill another human being for doing a crime. Go back to the viking times, it was acceptable to plunder and murder villages and take back the best looking women in order to be better of yourself.
Immigration is an issue that is far, far, FAR too complex to claim that it has anything approaching a simple moral answer.
I give you that, immigration was a bad example.
But even simple moral questions do not have answers that are easily explained by evolution. If it were simply genetic, it would be immoral for a person to die to save their parents. If it were social, it would be moral to kill one healthy man and harvest his organs to save five dying people.
Well no, because society has deemed the right to bodily autonomy trump any requirement to help another. That's why abortion is legal even though it is killing of your offspring.
My evidence for a universal morality is simple observation. The remarkable universality of even our warped understandings suggests, to me, that morality itself must be universal.
I don't disagree with you here except you say it must be universal. I take that some of it is universal and some of it is not. Some evolutionary and some through society. What I don't get is why you put your hypothesis of a god over the natural explanation.
So should I kill a healthy man and harvest his organs to save five dying people? That's the most good for the most people. Even if you say that it would harm the people to know where those organs came from, the answer is simple; don't tell them. Even if I kill myself to keep the truth a secret, and to balance out my crime, we're still three lives ahead!
Same answer as earlier.
I'm arguing for God's existence because nothing other than a God could create a universal morality.
Well, except you know "my" hypothesis? You might not believe it, but if we hypothesize that my hypothesis is true, then that could indeed create a universal morality, without the need of a god.
What this all boils down to, is WHY you think that there is a need for a god when there is a perfectly compatible hypothesis that fits the observations. What is your problems with my hypothesis that you choose yours over mine? I have problems with your hypothesis as it assumes the existence of a god, when there is no need to do so, and when a god hasn't been proven, such an assumption is illogical.
Btw, thanks for this discussion, I like the fact that you're going over most of my points even though I might disagree with you. And it's not as if I have a close mind, what you are saying is valid, and I feel like we agree on most things, or observations are the same, we just work out the hypothesis differently.