This essay was written as background information for a seminar I gave on apologetics at Summer Wine 2001 and 2002. Consequently, it is not written as formally as some of my other essays.
The moral argument for the existence of God examines the link between objective moral values, and God himself.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
What are objective moral values?[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Objective moral values are valid, and binding, independent of whether someone believes in them or not. For example, labelling the Holocaust as objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis thought it was right. And it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded at brainwashing everyone.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
What is the link between God and objective moral values?[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
If there is no God, then objective moral values are merely the product of socio-biological evolution. The atheist philosopher Michael Ruse said: "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth, and morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction - any deeper meaning is illusory".[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Without God, morality becomes just a matter of personal taste, similar to statements like, "Broccoli tastes good". Well, it tastes good to some people, but not to others. It is not a matter of objective truth but a subjective matter of taste. This means that a statement like: "killing innocent children is wrong", becomes simply an expression of taste, such as: "I don't like the killing of innocent children."[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
In the absence of God, there is no reason to think that the morality evolved by humans is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature that have only recently evolved on a tiny speck of dust lost somewhere in a mindless universe and are doomed to perish forever in a relatively short time.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Thus, without God, there is no absolute right or wrong that imposes itself on our conscience. Without God, there are no objective moral values.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Do objective moral values exist?[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Some people say that the idea of objective moral values is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different ideas of what constitutes good moral behaviour. But this is not true. There have been differences between the moralities of different societies, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If you compare the moral teachings of the societies such as the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Hindus, the Chinese, the Greeks, and the Romans, what will really strike you will be how very similar their moral teachings are to each other, and to our own. The same common law can be recognised running through them all. The fact that this common theme can be seen through many different civilisations and ages points to the fact that moral values are not simply the product of a society, but are somehow larger than a single society. They transcend the culture of a single society. This points to the existence of objective moral values, that are not culture-bound.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
When you think about the differences between the morality of one society and another, do you think that the morality of one society is ever better or worse than that of another? Have there ever been any improvements to the morality? If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. However, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others, and the moment that you say that one set of moral ideas is better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard. You are saying that one of the sets of moral values conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality. You are admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's moral ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something some Real Morality for them to be true about.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
C. S. Lewis gives the following analogy: "The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said 'New York' each means merely 'The town I am imagining in my own head', how could one of have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if moral values meant simply 'whatever each nation happens to approve', there would be no sense in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or worse."[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
We all know deep down that, in fact, objective moral values do exist. All we have to do to see that is to simply ask ourselves: "Is torturing a child for fun a morally neutral act?" Most people would answer, "No, that's not morally neutral; it's really wrong to do that".[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Actions like rape and child abuse aren't just behaviours that happen to be socially unacceptable - they are clearly moral abominations. They are objectively wrong. And such things as love, equality, and self-sacrifice really are good in an objective sense. We all know these things deep down. We all know that objective moral values do in fact exist.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
The Inescapable Conclusion[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
The conclusion here is simple. Since these objective moral values cannot exist without God, and yet they unquestionably do exist, it follows logically and inescapably that God exists. Objective moral values have God himself as their source.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Summary[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
The moral argument for the existence of God proposes the following:[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
- If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist as they are merely the product of socio-biological evolution.
- Some actions and events are objectively right, and others are objectively wrong, regardless of what people think of them, so objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
A number of sources were drawn on for this essay, particularly:
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Moody Press, 1994
- Norman Geisler, When Skeptics Ask, Baker Books, 2001
- Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1988
- Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, Zondervan, 2000
- C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, Harper San Francisco, last published 2001
- Phillip Yancey, Where is God when it hurts?, Zondervan, 1997


Comments
wwww.christian-apologetics.org/mcas/[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
and [pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
wwww.christian-apologetics.org/[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Just a couple of comments.
This is not meant to be inflamatory or insulting, I am a philosophy student and was interested by your argument.
The proof for the link between God and objective moral values seems to me to be flawed. Your proof seems to rest on the idea that its unpleasant for the non-existence of objective moral values. What is to say that moral values aren't a product of a biological or evolutionary process? Why can't we be insignificant specks of dust? Do human beings have to be special?[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
As a counter example; as stoic and unsettling as it sounds, one very strong reason for not killing innocent children, indeed anyone, could be that evolution has programmed us to fight for survival; to give our species the best chance in life. This may well be the reason for us finding the idea unpleasant.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Your argument about comparing moral values also seems to leave open room for objection. Surely when we judge a set of standards you are merely using another set of standards. You claim to be measuring them by the standards of true morality. How are these standards dictated to you? If we had a special moral intuition, which as is quite clearly not the case, then we will be comparing these moral standards by your own moral standards, which surely must be just as open to comparison as your initial subjects. Indeed, if it was the case that we all had the ability to judge moral values by "real morality" why wouldn't we live by them. If this was true, surely horrific acts like rape and murder would not exist. [pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
I realise that this is a sensitive ground that I am treading. However I do hope that this will push the argument forward. A paper worthwhile reading on the subject is J.L. Mackie's 'The Subjectivity of Values'.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Looking forward to your reply,[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Simon Woods[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Dude above me: I think the argument was only making a point that you can't assert the truth of anything moral if you don't believe in a God. And if nothing has a meaning, nothing matters.
You seem to have no problem accepting this, but you admit it, so that's ok.
The only way it could "prove" the existence of God to you is if you, as an individual, admit to yourself that you know intrinsically that there are absolute moral values that are of a spiritual nature and not a biological one. Or if you feel that you are more special than a rock or a lizard. [pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Some people try to have it both ways and try to get people to care about others, or animals, or whatever, without saying there is a right or a wrong. Can't do that. [pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos
Erin-- Woods is clearly and simply pointing out holes in the essay. The Human Race has a relatively advanced intelligence compared to all other species. This proves that we have a relatively advanced intelligence compared to other species. However there are also other species that have supierior intelligences, not as well developed as our own, but nevertheless superior to most. crows, porpoises, whales, and rats are all smart animals, yet still have no souls and don't deserve to share heaven with the glorious human race. I don't know about you, but I find this moral value wrong.
Of course one would think of themselves as more special than a rock or lizard; niether a rock nor a lizard, nor any other animal retains an intelligence to match one who has the ability to know that they have more value than some other living thing.
This however does not prove that God blessed us with moral values, but rather that concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest are still running rampid throughout our conscious minds.[pP]>finalfantasy7 music videos