You: In reality there is little difference between societal and personal morality. People will seek to make illegal those things that they personally disapprove of.

Aaron: That does not disprove my theory that God is at the root of those opinions.

You: True, but, because opinions change, your God's definition of good and evil would have to be changing as well. Are you prepared to admit that?

Aaron: No, but I am willing to say that the majorities opinion may not mesh with God's. Most people are not good Christians.

You: Then you are saying that those who "sense" God's morality are in the minority and therefore the majority gets their morality from another source. Since we admit another source, we might as well believe that it is the only source.

Aaron: On the contrary, I would argue that the majority is simply not moral. If they were, and if you could convince me that there is a non-Biblical source for their morality — be it genetic, hereditary or something else — then that source would have to have been made by God. Something cannot be the source of morality without having had morality instilled in it by a higher source.

You: Morality could arise through a neutral process such as social Darwinism. A process might favor the formation of moral societies without being moral itself.

Aaron: Again I say that there is no source of true morality but the perfection of the Lord.

You: You have not proven your point to me. I suggest you try another tact.