Originally posted by DragonFriend
Premise 1: before a group of people can live together peacefully there needs to be an agreed upon set of rules governing their actions
If there isn't , or if the rules are suddenly lifted, we get what we saw in New Orleans after Katrina. It quickly becomes might-makes-right.
Premise 2: in order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, they ...[text shortened]... (like the animals). Thus they came from someone above him. And that someone is God.
DF
Premise 2 is false. In order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, all that is required is that they agree there is sufficient reason to accept a set of rules. You have given no reason to think that these rules must come from some external authority like God. It is perfectly possible that such rules may come from considerations of what is in our rational best interest, or from natural sympathetic sentiment, or....
There is no reason to believe premise 3. Even if we grant the tendentious claim that mankind is currently civilized (have you read any history books recently, or turned on the T.V.?), it doesn't follow that mankind must have at any time agreed upon some common set of rules. In fact, it is much more plausible that humans have endorsed different sets of rules, but that happen to have a moderate degree of overlap. Further, the rules we have in fact accepted seem to be justified in different ways by different people. You think it is wrong to murder because God says so. I think it is wrong to murder because one should cultivate compassion as a virtue. If we agree on not murdering (or other rules) we can get along pretty well, even though we disagree about the source of morality.
Anyway, it is false that all men's opinions are equal. If you opine that P is the case, and I opine that not P is the case. Then one of us must be right (i.e., our opinions aren't equal because one of them is false). Further, if you opine that P but can only provide really silly reasons to think that P is true, while I can provide good reasons for thinking that P is false, then our opinions aren't equal (because yours is unjustified and mine is justified).
So, what's your next argument?
(1)....?