atheism and relativism.

With blind indifference chance happenstance, there is no reason or logic. 

There is always the possibilty that there is no reason or logic.   

But you continue to find it when you discuss origins. It is woven into the fabric of the universe. We discover there is a way in which things work and a causal pattern to their existence.

Plus you continue to use it. 

C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God

That's your opinion - not to be confused with an objective basis for morality. 

It was C.S. Lewis' opinion, but I agree with it. 

The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

In most any culture or sub-culture there is a sense of fairness. The question is why should it be there based on evolution?

There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).

Not really. If someone doesn't think human life is special, then they likely have been or will be removed from the human population through self inflicted or societal exile/death.

Take a look at all the dictators and oligarchies around the world that do just fine by exploiting and devaluing human life. 

I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god

Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 

Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals? 

With blind indifference chance happenstance, there is no reason or logic. 

There is always the possibilty that there is no reason or logic.   

But you continue to find it when you discuss origins. It is woven into the fabric of the universe. We discover there is a way in which things work and a causal pattern to their existence.

Plus you continue to use it. 

Damn English is so ambiguous!   I mean that there may be no reason in the sense of 'reason = purpose or goal'.   I think that reasons in the sense of 'prior causes' are real enough, but may be not so the 'teleological' sort of 'reason'.   You my have meant somehing else entirely - that happens!

That is an argument from ignorance. If I do not know where the universe came from that does not automatically make you right you still need to demonstrate your claim. I don't need to know where the universe came from in order to reject your claim for lack of evidence.

simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

When you assert that your claim is true simply because the answer is not known that is by definition an argument from ignorance. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the more common logical fallacies before debating. Until we can clear up this issue we may not be able to have a rational discussion. Again the burden of proof is on the claimant even if his opponent does not have an alternative claim to offer.

You are confusing personal preference and subjective opinion with moral right and wrong.

The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

The biblical God described exhibits many of the same traits that human beings do but animals lack, but to a greater degree. We can conceptualize, unlike any animal can. We can communicate like no animal, expressing complex ideas. We can use logic to solve problems that animals cannot. We experience life differently from animals. We can know abstract things to a greater degree, unlike animals. We can know and speculate on the good and evil of what is done.

There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).

Exactly, so you don't get an ought from an is. 

Fairness in whose mind? The Nazi mind? Kim Jong-un's mind? Your mind? Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?

I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.

Extremes? They're not extremes to large portions of the world's population. They are the norms. 

People have a concern to an extent, yes. My belief regarding this is because they are made in the image and likeness of God so they can't escape this [...]

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god

Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 

Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals? 

Are animals moral or just instinctively protective of their own? 

Some individuals may be able to commit immoral acts without justice, but in the broad picture this is insignificant. Moral actions have a net positive

affect on humanity, and immoral actions a net-negative. Also, there is justice but it, much like its purveyors, is not perfect.

It is not insignificant to those who have been wronged. Someone like Hitler, in your scenario, will not be brought to justice in the same proportion that he inflicted injustice.

Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure. 

Disagree. Can you show me on a thermometer where I can find "Hot"? Hot is a subjective qualitative label, nonetheless, it's generally agreed upon.

You are confusing personal preference and subjective opinion with moral right and wrong.

I think that view is misguided and demonstrably false in the age of science. Scientific methodologies allow for there to be no "best knowledge" while unquestionably move away from ignorance 

I don't think the question is whether there is a best but whether we can achieve or recognize the best.

Best in relation to knowledge would be a complete and accurate understanding of the thing known. 

You have made the claim that something exists which did not begin to exist. Can you demonstrate this or is it a bald assertion?

You have also claimed that nothing can begin to exist without a cause can you demonstrate this or is it impossible to prove a negative?

You have gone beyond claiming that the universe had a cause and on to claiming it was a specific cause. Can you demonstrate this specific cause or is this a false dichotomy?

Do you know of anything that has a beginning that does not have a cause? 

This is the ploy of many atheists - avoidance

I don't have the answers to any of these  questions but that doesn't mean that magic is the answer.

This is the ploy of many atheists - avoidance

Saying that I don't know and refraining from making any claim in the absence of sufficient evidence is not avoidance it is honesty. 

Then it is up to you to show I am also ill-informed and ignorant

How much do you know of the Preterist argument? If you don't know much about it how can you say it is insufficient?

Suppose someone dies of a heart attack in a New York hotel room.  The Haitian housekeeper says its because some enemy used voodoo.   Is she right?  More to the point, how could you prove to her that it wasn't voodoo?

People who claim 'goddidit' are in the same position as the housekeeper - they are making a claim that can't be refuted, only dismissed.

In 2018 cosmologists are still working hard on discovering the real mechanisms behind the origins of the universe.

It's seems to be some job, just as doing an autopsy on a heart-attack victim is harder than saying 'it was voodoo'.

So to PGA I say that his belief is no more than rank superstition and shows a lack of intellectual curiosity.   'Goddidit' is not - strictly speaking - illogical.  It is boringly obvious that an if an entity capabale of creating universes and enabling prophesy existed it would explain everything.

'Goddidit' is an answer - but you have to believe it to believe it, just as only another Haitian would believe the housekeeper!

Magic, god(s), ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster and pandimensional beings all have about the same level of evidence and saying god did it you may as well say magic. You may substitute god(s) for magic in my previous post if it helps you understand my meaning better.

Failure to admit your ignorance does not make it go away. If you have evidence other than anecdotal please present it but allow me to be perfectly clear the bible is not evidence it is the claim. Without some sufficient evidence (objective physical evidence would be nice and anecdotal testimony is not sufficient) I reject the claim the bible represents. Logic without evidence or logic based on incorrect can lead to incorrect conclusions so logic while a necessary component is useless without evidence. Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes either those are profoundly unimpressive.