Can you give a response to the discussion posts I have inputted below.

The Question they responded to are: Topic A: Morality Without God?

Watch both the Prager and Shermer videos and discuss which one you feel is the most convincing position and why. Try to incorporate the other readings for this week or additional research into your answer.

Topic B: Natural Law

Based on all you have read about Natural Law present an argument for the notion that there is a natural law humans can follow to determine the right things to do in most cases or that such a law does not exist or is exaggerated. Be sure to address the differences in beliefs about morality discussed in chapter two.

Topic A (Post 1): Both Prager and Shermer presented compelling arguments on whether or not murder is wrong. After watching the videos several times, I choose to oppose Prager's opinion on that for many reasons. It is a complex subject because one cannot really explain or prove why exactly murder is wrong, however that does not automatically imply that morality is not objective. With the religious view, God is considered as the objective moral good which means he would never do anything objectively wrong. Not committing murder for those with religious beliefs would be not only because God said it is wrong but also the fear of hell and punishment; however, it appears that morality obliges to do the right thing for the right reason, so this clearly demonstrate that such action is not truly moral action. Some of those people who do not believe in God, or those who think that many different gods exist will not commit murder not because of God's command but because they know that it is not the moral thing to do or because of the consequences that follow.

If God has good reasons to command you not to do certain acts because they are unfair or hurt others, then you already would have good reasons not to do these acts. You too should care about unfairness and avoiding hurting others for exactly the same reasons as God. Therefore, whatever reasons God has to command certain acts, these reasons are also why you should act in those ways. This means that whatever reasons God has for His commands, these same considerations make it right for us to do the relevant acts. This means that if God has good reasons to issue His commands, He is no longer needed as the ultimate source of morality.

Topic B (Post 2) : For this weeks topic I chose to do topic B. I do believe that humans could very well function on the principle of Natural Law. What exactly is Natural Law? As defined by dictionary.com Natural law is a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.In the youtube video posted in the reading for this week they mentioned that Aquinas knew that not everyone had been exposed to the bible or even heard of god. With that being said how could someonefollow gods moral rule without ever knowing them or who he is? Aquinas believed that we were all have preset instincts that tells us what basic goods are. I feel like a good example of this is Buddhism. Buddhists don't believe in a supreme god or deity but yet they practice a life of peace and tranquility. They live there lives based on karma if they do good moral thing that it will return to them in which they live there life. To me this is proof enough to base that Natural Law is in some way or form programed in us all.