All of your alternatives render the same outcome - If God is removed from the mix you believe humans will tend to act in an animalistic manner. My observation is that this places the essence of humans firmly within that of the other animals but not within the 'image of God'. If man was created in the image of God what would cause him to, or decide to, act immorally?
"Actually, animals have no moral obligations whatsoever. If human beings were merely animals it wouldn't matter whether we were moral or not. Does anyone hold a beaver accountable if building his dam wipes out a species of fish?
Of course we don't, because they are not part of our community structure. Our moral sense developed in the interactions of humans to humans; if we include animals in that it is through an expansion of our family group.
What makes you believe that animals are incapable of constructing their own moral guidelines? The nearer the species is to our level of intelligence, and the more community based they are, the more complex the interactions and the more 'thought' goes into the formation of individual limitations of action within the group. This 'moral code' has been observed in Chimp communities both in captivity and in the wild. This isn't to say that their code is not far more primative than ours but since their intellect is not as developed as ours we shouldn't expect their code to be as advanced.
I'm not sure I understand how you're addressing this. G-d can't be removed from the mix. He exists. What I'm saying is that if He didn't exist then there would be no reason to care about morality. What we would have, instead, is social conventions that can change on a whim. There is no reason to prefer taking care of sick children to the Spartan convention of leaving them to die of exposure. Can you provide a justification? Can you provide a justification for taking care of the elderly instead of sending them off to die so they won't consume resources? Can you provide a justification for taking care of anyone, rather than demanding that only the strong survive?
My observation is that this places the essence of humans firmly within that of the other animals but not within the 'image of God'.
Are you making a distinction between whether G-d exists or whether man believes in him? I'm honestly confused. If G-d doesn't exist then man doesn't have an 'image of G-d.'
If man was created in the image of God what would cause him to, or decide to, act immorally?
Pride. That much is consistent throughout human history.
Of course we don't, because they are not part of our community structure. Our moral sense developed in the interactions of humans to humans; if we include animals in that it is through an expansion of our family group.
If we are of the same essence, why not?
What makes you believe that animals are incapable of constructing their own moral guidelines?
Lack of evidence.
The nearer the species is to our level of intelligence, and the more community based they are, the more complex the interactions and the more 'thought' goes into the formation of individual limitations of action within the group. This 'moral code' has been observed in Chimp communities both in captivity and in the wild. This isn't to say that their code is not far more primative than ours but since their intellect is not as developed as ours we shouldn't expect their code to be as advanced.
There is a huge difference between generally accepted mores and a moral code. What you describe falls into the former category. In that category, Soylent Green is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it. Drowning your children is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it. Offing your elderly parents is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it.
In fact, nothing is wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it.
And you're OK with that?
Shalom.
Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.
It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.
People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.
There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.
It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.
But are Fred Hoyles calculation's correct? It would be dangerous just to assume that his calculations were. A more recent claim details that biogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) is not reliant on the random movement of atoms, but is a natural process, just as hydrogen and oxygen atoms naturally attract to form water. But, if this is the case, what are the chances of the 'Big Bang' producing the atoms that would behave in such a fashion that they would naturally form amino acids and proteins, which in turn would naturally come together to form life?