Most Christians that I have spoken with have no idea what a solid argument for the existence of God is. This is troubling to me, for we as Christians should have a defense prepared for anyone that asks us for the hope that is in us--1st Peter 3:15. I think that this post will be advantageous for the Christian that is seeking for reasons to believe in God.

The Moral Argument attempts to show that if objective morals exist, then God exists. Most of you reading this are probably thinking, what is objective mean? It means that our ethical system isn't dependent upon us. That is to say, if Hitler would've been successful in his conquest of Europe, successfully brianwashed or murdered anyone who remained, it would've still been wrong regardless if everyone thought. There is a flip side to objective morals which is relative. That is to say that morals are dependent us to be right or wrong.

The argument is formulated in in two basic premises that lead to the conclusion that God exists.

Premise 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.

Premise 2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Conclusion. Therefore, God exists.

The first premise is viturally unattested thus making the crutical premise in the argument the second one. So what I will be spending most of my time doing is defending the second premise.

A critical distinction in terms must be made here between moral values and duties. Moral values are what is right or wrong, good and evil, or good and bad. Moral duties deal with what one ought and ought not do. And another important distinction must be drawn, the proponents of this argument are not saying that you must believe in God in order to maintain a moral life. For I know that many atheists put to shame Christians in the moral department but the Bible states that God has written the law across the heart of all men and women. That means that the moral law is known to all people regardless if they believe in God or not.

This argument is merely postulating is that without God objective moral values and duties do not exist. That is to say, morality is all relative.

We are making a postive claim here which means we have the burden of proof. So when we say, objective moral values and duties exist we need to back this up. But I take the position that everyone deep down knows that objective moral values and duties exist. I find it to be a futile attempt to defend something everyone already knows is truth. It would be like someone trying to prove the Laws of Logic. We all know they exist even if you cannot prove them. You can't avoid using the Laws of Logic, and when you try to go agaisnt them, you run into inconsistentcies, along with contradictons, and self-refuting sentences. For example, saying, there is no truth would be an example of going against a fundamental Law of Logic, namely, the Law of non-contradiction. To say that there is no truth requires a truth claim. If there is no truth, then the statement that there is no truth can't be true.

Similarly, one will run into the same type of problems when denying the objectivity of moral values. Consider this conversation between a skeptic and an apologist.

Skeptic: There are no objective morals

Apologist: Well, then morality is relative.

Skeptic: Indeed.

Apologist: So would you say that it is okay to murder an atheist just because he is an athiest? Or for a father to decapitate his son because he is tired of taking care of him?

Skeptic: NO!

Apologist: Why not? You believe that morals are relative, correct?

Skeptic Yes.

Apologist: Well, moral relativism entails that it is up to the individual to say what is right or wrong. In this particular instance, what is wrong to you--decapitating his child due to being tired of taking care of him--isn't wrong to that father. Who are you to say to another individual who has his own idea of morals that what they are doing is wrong? This would ential you having some sort of moral high ground which under moral relativism doesn't exist. To live consistently under moral relativism, you have to affirm that there isn't anything really wrong with decapitating a child because one is tired of taking care of him, raping little girls, or murdering atheists just because they are atheists. The problem is, something screams out that something is wrong with raping little girls, decapitating children, and murdering atheists because they are atheists. But under moral relativism, what is the basis of saying these things are wrong? And what makes it wrong?

At this point, most athiests will more than likely realize that objective morals exist. Why? Because it becomes apparent quite quickly that there is no basis for right and wrong under moral relativism and no reason can be given to show that actions such as rape and murder is wrong. This is because it is up to the person what is right and wrong! Under relativism, one has no more right to say that rape is wrong than they do if they were to say someone is wrong for liking vanallia over chocolate.

That sounds very eloquent. lol. But I am wondering what you are saying.

Is it an eloquent way of saying, morals of men are not truth, as they are subject to interpretation of what is good and what is wrong?

That surely is the case. This is why only God can determine what is good and what is wrong.

May Jesus bless you.

Well said. I would have to agree. I've heard this argument from C.S. Luis.

__________________
I wield the sword of the Spirit and the helmet of salvation; shield of faith is lowered at the moment.

Ramon,

My point here is that if the basis of morality derives from man then we don't have any right to say to another person that they are wrong for any action (a). There is nothing really wrong with, say, rape, murdering, or lying under moral relativism. Everyone has their opinion of what right and wrong is, but what makes these actions right or wrong? Where is the basis to them? And why are they wrong?

Essentially, I am conceding what the atheist says about morality and turning it back on them. But what you have said is also correct.

I hope that I clearified.

Indeed! When talking about morality, C.S. Lewis is the go-to-guy.

Let's wonder a minute then. If the morality that is derived from men is not to be trusted, then which is? If the morality of men is subjective, then how does one determine what is right and what is wrong?

The answer is very simple, God is good and just and holy and pure, and men are corrupt from their youth. The standard of good is God, and the good of men falls short.

Yet God is not about morality, he is about truth. God is true, and as far as I am concerned, every man is a liar when compared to him.

Yet, if anyone knows God, he knows the truth. If anyone hears Jesus, he has heard the truth. And if Jesus has put his Spirit in a person, who is the Spirit of truth, then they have EVERY right to make a judgement. As the children of God will judge the entire earth.

Yet any man should be cautious about how he judges, because there is but one PURE judge and that is God, whose judgement is always just.

May Jesus bless you.

Ramon, I agree with everything you have said here! Indeed, God is truth and man is corrupted. Where these moral values and duties derive are out of God's good and Holy nature. Thus they would be objective, outside of us.