Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Proof for God's Existence - The Moral Argument

Morality - Moral Argument
(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
(2) Objective moral values do exist.
(3) Therefore God exists.

When I think of the moral compass in my heart, somehow I know it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, I realize those morals are not there by chance, they have been placed inside me by a creator who is moral, and I say, “Yes, God is there!”

Every human has a conscience.
How do humans know the difference between right and wrong? Within every human there is a sense of right and wrong, a conscience. The word “conscience” comes from two words: the prefix con meaning “with” and science meaning “knowledge.” So the word “conscience” means “with knowledge.”

This knowledge of right and wrong comes from God. He gives us the knowledge of what is good because He is good. God is good and His nature is good and just. Everything He does is good, and just. He has given humans a conscience that tells us what is good and just.

The Bible says that even people who do not know God have a conscience and they know right from wrong, “…for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)…” (Romans 2:14-15 NKJV).

If there is no Creator who gives us moral values, then humans are nothing but animals, and animals do not have morals. The difference between humans and animals is morality. The difference between man and animals is that man knows right from wrong. Mankind has a conscience. Animals do not have a conscience. Sometimes a mother dog will eat her own puppies with no pain or guilt. A female praying mantis consumes the male after mating with him. A grizzly bear does not feel remorse after killing a human. If evolution is true, there is no ultimate standard of right and wrong.

Everyone knows that some things are right and some things are wrong.
Everyone in the world has an inherent sense of right and wrong. This is what Kant calls a “categorical imperative.”[1] He calls it “categorical” because it is universal, everyone has a category of understanding that some things are wrong. He calls it “imperative” because everyone is impelled to act upon this moral understanding. Even when we try to ignore or erase our moral sense, it still remains. If we try to deny our moral sense or act against it, we feel guilt. It is this sense of guilt that everyone, both apologist and atheist, can agree upon.

Even those who might say there is no right and wrong still feel a great sense of injustice when something is stolen from them. If a thief steals your iPod, you know it is wrong.

There is no good without God.
If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. If there is no objective morality, society would quickly fall apart. Without an external morality the only rule that would survive is that “might makes right.” Whoever has the biggest gun would rule. Without a supreme moral law giver there would be no moral distinction between right and wrong. Everything would be permissible based on one’s own preferences. Indeed, we see that when God is removed from the equation society slips towards the philosophy that, “If it feels right for me, then it is right.” This creates a society that celebrates homosexual marriage, uninhibited sexuality, and the killing of unborn babies.

Atheists might reply that rules are created by society and that anything society approves of is right and what society disapproves of is wrong. But, this approach gives us no reason to say that the pedophilia of Roman times was wrong or that the slavery of past eras was an injustice. If society determines what is right and wrong and their ancient societies approved of that behavior, who are we to judge them by the standards of our society?

Some have argued that morals are different in every culture and thus they are subjective to the will of the majority. Most of us would agree that cannibalism is wrong but in some tribes in Paupua New Guinea it is considered noble to eat your enemy. But, even the cannibal chief knows right from wrong. He may eat people, but if we say to him, “Today, we eat your child”, somehow he knows that is wrong.


[1] Kant, Critique of Practical Reason,