The Moral Argument

Does the existence of a standard of right vs. wrong show that God exists? The argument is as follows:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral duties and values do not exist.
2. Objective moral duties and values exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

What do we mean by "objective moral duties and values"? We mean that there seems to exist a moral code that is valid and binding for all people at all times, regardless of the cultural values, governments, or ruling authority's say so.

One of the most obvious examples for people of the 20th & 21st centuries is the Holocaust. What Hitler commanded to his nation was morally wrong, even though he believed it was the right thing to do. The world put on trial those who said they were just following orders. Even if the Nazis would have won WWII and killed all who thought differently, it would still be wrong.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral duties and values do not exist.

So why should we think that objective morality would only exist if God exists? If atheism is true, then everything is just here by accident. There is no purpose, no plan, no right, and no wrong. Everything just is. There is no goal-directedness, no ultimate meaning, and as far as behavior of species goes...well that's just a survival-of-the-fittest mechanism. 

As Richard Dawkins (arguably the world's most well-known atheist) says, "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Dawkins himself points out that if there is no good, no evil, then that's just they way things are. So why does he become so outraged at things he finds offensive in the world? If there is no good and no evil, then certainly it is irrational to lash out at others for just behaving as their genes would have them do, right?

2. Objective moral duties and values exist.

But it seems that Dawkins is grasping at what he wants to deny, an objective realm of good and evil. He is at least acting as if there is some kind of standard that decent human beings should adhere to. He wants to affirm that we should follow the good and do good, and eschew evil and abstain from evil acts, but his entire worldview puts that notion in jeopardy.

Atheist Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Louise Antony, says, "Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based upon premises which are less obvious than the reality of moral values and duties themselves, and therefore can never be rational to accept moral skepticism."

So when we hear stories of little girls being molested by their drunk fathers, are we right to feel indignation towards that action? Are we right to cry out for justice for that little girl? Is it really wrong what that father did to her, or is just a social taboo?

Everyone has a sense of right an wrong, regardless of how they came to know that standard, and regardless of whether we agree on what that standard is or how we follow that standard. One of the main themes in the Bible is that human beings cannot follow the law, and the human heart is inherently evil.

3. Therefore, God exists.

If the realm of an objective moral standard exists, then where did it come from? Is "the good" some abstract object that just exists out there? If so, what compels us to align ourselves with it? If it isn't something called "the good", but rather a collection of abstract objects like "justice", "fairness", "truthfulness", "charity", etc, then what binds us to those virtues rather than "maliciousness", "treachery", "oppressiveness", etc.

God is the moral standard. God's nature is what we would recognize as good. This is the only way to have a true standard. There have been attempts to place the standard outside of God, but they lack the transcendent grounding that we seem to want to affirm, namely that something is either right or wrong regardless of your feelings or upbringing.

C.S. Lewis said, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

This brings up a fascinating point: that if we all know the difference between good and evil, then surely the entire human population would be able to recognize that we have all done something wrong in our lives. The story of Jesus offers redemption for those short-comings. Romans 3:23 says "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...". If this is true, then we require forgiveness or punishment. It is only just for crimes to be punished, unless otherwise forgiven by the one against whom the crimes were committed. God has offered that forgiveness to all of mankind through Jesus Christ. 

If you feel ashamed for some type of wrong you've committed in the past, know that God loves you regardless of your behavior. There is still time to ask for forgiveness. And the all-powerful, all-loving God of the universe has promised that He will extend His hand of mercy and forgiveness to any that will ask. If you don't know the saving power of Jesus, I urge you to read the Gospel of John today and find out the true nature of God's love.


Here are some more resources regarding objective morality: