THE MORAL ARGUMENT
The Moral Argument for the existence of God is based on 2 premises and then a conclusion that naturally follows. The premises and conclusion will be stated and then evidence supporting the premises will be given.
If one and two are true then three inescapably follows. So, is premise one true? I have debated atheists online who say in fact number one is not true. The reason they site is the Laws from science, such as Newton's Laws of Motion, have no law giver. I could argue from a design perspective that these Laws from science do have a law giver, but that is not necessary. To solve this problem I shall simply explain what is meant by Law. Certainly there are Laws from science that are absolute and unchanging insofar as we correctly understand the science, which often is not the case. Now there are also Laws that tell us how we ought to behave. Laws such as we ought not commit murder, we ought not speed, we ought to pay taxes and so forth. It is this later usage of the word Law that I am referring to. Now these Laws are legislated by a legislature, in the U.S. that would be congress. Now, understanding the usage of Law I am referring to, premise number one obviously is true.
Moving on to premise number two. Is there in fact a universal moral law, one that everyone agrees with? Is there a moral law such that when one disagrees with that law they are just as wrong as when saying two plus two equals five? It should be noted that determining that there are absolute moral laws and determining what they are are two different tasks. All that is need to show that premise number two is true is to find one example. I give as an example the following: torturing babies for fun is an absolute moral wrong. Now, one might object that if you search hard enough you could find someone who disagrees about that being a moral wrong. First of all, anyone who thinks that torturing babies is morally alright under any circumstance is a sociopath. Second, in all cases with no exceptions, such persons had some traumatic experience, something out of the normal that changed them. So, all people at least started out knowing that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong.
Therefore there is a moral law giver. What do we know about this moral law giver? Since all people know this moral law, irregardless of society, it does not come from man. If it came from man, it might change over time of from culture to culture. The mere fact of how traumatic an experience it takes to override this moral knowledge shows how powerful an influence the moral law giver has. So, who could this moral law giver possibly be if he is not a man? There is only one answer, the creator of the universe, the Almighty God himself. To deny that is to deny yourself. To deny that God exists means giving up distinguishing between truly right and wrong acts. Without God, right and wrong become mere opinions. Can anyone live in such a world and stay true to their world view? I think not.
- Every law has a law giver.
- There is a Moral Law.
- Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.
If one and two are true then three inescapably follows. So, is premise one true? I have debated atheists online who say in fact number one is not true. The reason they site is the Laws from science, such as Newton's Laws of Motion, have no law giver. I could argue from a design perspective that these Laws from science do have a law giver, but that is not necessary. To solve this problem I shall simply explain what is meant by Law. Certainly there are Laws from science that are absolute and unchanging insofar as we correctly understand the science, which often is not the case. Now there are also Laws that tell us how we ought to behave. Laws such as we ought not commit murder, we ought not speed, we ought to pay taxes and so forth. It is this later usage of the word Law that I am referring to. Now these Laws are legislated by a legislature, in the U.S. that would be congress. Now, understanding the usage of Law I am referring to, premise number one obviously is true.
Moving on to premise number two. Is there in fact a universal moral law, one that everyone agrees with? Is there a moral law such that when one disagrees with that law they are just as wrong as when saying two plus two equals five? It should be noted that determining that there are absolute moral laws and determining what they are are two different tasks. All that is need to show that premise number two is true is to find one example. I give as an example the following: torturing babies for fun is an absolute moral wrong. Now, one might object that if you search hard enough you could find someone who disagrees about that being a moral wrong. First of all, anyone who thinks that torturing babies is morally alright under any circumstance is a sociopath. Second, in all cases with no exceptions, such persons had some traumatic experience, something out of the normal that changed them. So, all people at least started out knowing that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong.
Therefore there is a moral law giver. What do we know about this moral law giver? Since all people know this moral law, irregardless of society, it does not come from man. If it came from man, it might change over time of from culture to culture. The mere fact of how traumatic an experience it takes to override this moral knowledge shows how powerful an influence the moral law giver has. So, who could this moral law giver possibly be if he is not a man? There is only one answer, the creator of the universe, the Almighty God himself. To deny that is to deny yourself. To deny that God exists means giving up distinguishing between truly right and wrong acts. Without God, right and wrong become mere opinions. Can anyone live in such a world and stay true to their world view? I think not.