Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
1. There is a God

Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[Artie]

If morality is based on animal behavior, then morality is still subjective in every case; because just as some humans think any behavior is immoral so do many others say the opposite, as some humans indulge in those behaviors and some don't, so some animals behave in a certain way, while others do not.

Morality isn't "based on animal behavior" organisms started cooperating and organisms that cooperated had a better chance of survival than those who didn't and cooperation evolved a common behavior and set of codes called morals. There are different sets of codes for different organisms of course depending to what degree they are social or solitary.

If our basis for our morality is animal behavior, then genetic engineering and human cloning are neither moral or immoral because there is no precedent in nature (or perhaps such is immoral because there is no precedent in nature, but that would make human reasoning immoral simply because there is no precedent in nature).

Whether something is moral or immoral depends on whether it benefits the individual, society and by extension everybody and whether it's more detrimental than positive. The more varied the human genome the better adaptability to different conditions and therefore better survivability. Cloning would be the opposite.

[jimvansage]

Or, you could argue that cloning is helpful for the individual survival, especially if by cloning a human of rare blood type you could provide an endless supply of donors.

But the creation human life for the sole purpose of harvesting blood (or harvesting organs, resulting in the death of the clone) is either moral, immoral, or neither.
Creating human life, the purpose one creates that life, affect the morality of the act. How do we determine this is my question.

[Artie]

Or, you could argue that cloning is helpful for the individual survival, especially if by cloning a human of rare blood type you could provide an endless supply of donors.

But the creation human life for the sole purpose of harvesting blood (or harvesting organs, resulting in the death of the clone) is either moral, immoral, or neither.
Creating human life, the purpose one creates that life, affect the morality of the act. How do we determine this is my question.

We determine this by using logic, reason and common sense of course. Creating clones for the sole purpose of harvesting blood etc is obviously immoral because you would not have wanted to be that clone yourself would you. Again the Golden Rule.

[dusk]

then genetic engineering and human cloning are neither moral or immoral because there is no precedent in nature

I would say it isn't immoral, yet I don't see why there needs to be a precedent in nature. There are. An identical twin is technically a clone. Either one or both. There is no original or both are. It is still a clone.

Or, you could argue that cloning is helpful for the individual survival, especially if by cloning a human of rare blood type you could provide an endless supply of donors.

But the creation human life for the sole purpose of harvesting blood (or harvesting organs, resulting in the death of the clone) is either moral, immoral, or neither.
Creating human life, the purpose one creates that life, affect the morality of the act. How do we determine this is my question.

Unless you follow some religion that thinks the soul cannot be cloned and only the original is a human being, you will have the problem that to every clone should be extended the same human rights any other human being receives. Thus cloning for harvesting puts you into the same ball park as raiding slums to harvest organs. We could do it just like the Brits raided Africa for slaves but it wouldn't really be considered moral.
Without a god in the picture that explicitly forbids it, cloning is not any worse than getting children. The problem is more in what do you do with a clone once it is there. Also with two many clones you kill of the evolutionary process. We already do that with medicine anyway so what shalls but it also gets eventually boring with all the same people running around. I am thinking of Battlestar Galactica. They got only 8 Models of those Zylons humans.
A clone like Dolly still grows up just like any other sheep and doesn't age super fast or is produced in fully developed stage. So if you fight with your friend over a beautiful girl/man (which ever you prefer) cloning isn't really a solution unless you want to wait 20 years until the clone is old enough, at which point you will be too old and uninteresting.
If you manage to produce clones in full finished adulthood like Saruman his Uruk'ai in Lord of the Rings, you have the moral problem of robbing these clones of the experience of childhood. How would that be fair?

Lots of problems with cloning humans but I wouldn't say anything is intrinsically wrong with it. With religions and souls and what people believe in it can become a problem but it really a theological problem they need to solve themselves IMO. Same goes with genetical engineering. Nothing wrong with except that it might get boring if everyone is the same in too many aspects. As far as genetical engineering as in enhancing goes I think that one is only a matter of time and will definitely come about. Might be 5 decades away or more who knows but I think that is a given. Human cloning I am not so sure that can ever be justified for all the problems.
PID is in a way already a bit of gene enhancing by taking the random out of the equation concerning certain specific hereditary deseases. It is not any actual enhancing as you don't change anything or add anything. There is also not much to go on as you need to know what to test or before hand and afaik can only test for very few targeted things but anyway. It is still sort of done the evolutionary selection before you even start via science rather than time.