Alright, not sure if you've heard this one before.
Here's an argument for the existence of God that I've heard before.
Let me know what you guys think:
"If we all evolved from other the same point of chaos, why is it that man is distinctly different in one respect: morality. I do not speak of morality as in "the existence of non-universal, yet implied, code of conduct from which people choose to live by," but the word itself. It would seem that in all of existence things only do what they do. There exists not "should" and "should not". A rock never does what it "should not" do, even as an animal does what it "should not" do. Planets circle the stars, stars circle around galactic centers of gravities.. and so on. So how is it, that man, does what he "should not" do? It doesn't matter what the "should not" is defined as, merely that it is stated as an meaningful, applicable concept towards eachother."
Anyways. Let me know what you guys thing. I'll try not to let me replying get out of hand. I sense that there is a fault in this argument, I just can't clearly formulate it-- so perhaps you all will help clear up the issue.