The Moral Argument for God's existence

[AgnosticBoy]

Dr. William Lane Craig presents his moral argument for God's existence:

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

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exist.

If those two premises are true then the conclusion follows necessarily and logically. The only question is: are the two premises true?

By “objective” I mean valid and binding independently of whether anybody believes in it or not. To say that moral values are objective means that these moral values are binding and valid independently of whether any human being believes in them or not.

For example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively evil is to say that it was evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone thought the Holocaust was good. To say that the Holocaust was objectively evil is to say it was evil regardless of whether anybody thinks that it was or not. That is what we mean by objective moral values. They hold independently of whether any human being happens to agree with them or not.

Regarding the Premise 1

I find this first premise is one that young people, at least, really resonate with because they have been taught for years in high school and college that everything is relative and that every society and culture develops its own set of moral values,
...
In the absence of God, everything becomes socio-cultural relative.

But it seems to me, wholly apart from that, it is very plausible in and of itself. Consider what naturalism says. Naturalism is the view that there is no God and that all that exists is just physical objects in space and time – just the natural world is all that exists. On naturalism, what foundation is there for objective moral values?[1] More particularly, what is the basis for the objective value of human beings on naturalism? If God does not exist as a sort of transcendent anchor point for moral values, then it is hard to see why human beings would be special or that the morality that has evolved among human beings would be objectively binding. Why think that we would have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what would impose these obligations upon us? On naturalism, we are just products of biological and social evolution, and the values that we embrace today are simply the socio-biologically relative byproducts of the system of evolution.

I want us to be very careful here, because it is very important to understand the question. The question here is not “Must we believe in God in order to live good and moral lives?” I am not claiming that we must believe in God in order to live good, moral lives. There is no reason to think that atheists as well as Christians cannot live what we'd normally characterize as a good and decent life. Nor is the question, “Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?” There is no reason to think you have to believe in God in order to recognize the difference between right and wrong. In fact, the Bible actually says that God has implanted his moral law on the hearts of all people so that we have an instinctual grasp of the difference between right and wrong. So you don't need to believe in God in order to recognize that you ought to love your children rather than to torture them and abuse them.[6] The question here is not whether belief in God is essential to morality. Rather, the question is, as Paul Kurtz said, if there is no God then are moral values and duties objective or are they just ephemeral?
___________________________________________________________________

I really don't see where Dr. Craig supports the validity of P1 and P2 and that's part of the discussion I want to have here. Where or how does this argument prove that God exists? How does it prove that objective morals exist? Dr. Craig points out that objective morals would only exist if there was a God (since naturalism can't account for it), but that's more of a theoretical point, in my view. First show that God exists, and that objective morals exist.

Am I missing something?!

Source: ReasonableFaith

Let's discuss:
1. What is your view regarding Dr. Craig's moral argument? Is it valid or persuasive?
2. Do you agree with Dr. Craig's definition of 'objective' morality?

 

[Scooter]

While this is not a true story, I love the way it illustrates the existence of God:

Does evil exist?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

@Scooter



That was a good illustration. Reminds me of Saint Augustine's view that evil is the privation of good. Here's an good explanation I read about that view:

Saint Augustine, who initially accepted the Manichaean theory of evil, eventually rejected it in favor of the Neoplatonist approach. (See Augustine, Confessions; On the Morals of the Manichaeans; Reply to Manichaeus; Burt, Augustine’s World.)

According to the Neoplatonists, evil does not exist as a substance or property but instead as a privation of substance, form, and goodness (Plotinus, Enneads, I, 8; See also O’Brien 1996). For instance, the evil of disease consists in a privation of health, and the evil of sin consist in a privation of virtue. The Neoplatonist theory of evil provides a solution to the problem of evil because if evil is a privation of substance, form, and goodness, then God creates no evil. All of God’s creation is good, evil is a lack of being and goodness.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

While the illustration that Scooter brought up deals with the nature and problem of evil, but I don't view it as support for God's existence. So a sticking point that remains for me is the still the support for P1 and P2 and Dr. Craig's argument from post #1. I at least get part of Craig's point that objective morals could only exist if God exist since he goes through why naturalism can't account for objective morals. SO then maybe if we validate P2 alone, then that could support P1.

So how do we know that objective morals exist as opposed to morals that are derived from sociocultural constructs/conditioning?

 

[Scooter]

I believe goodness (morals) come from God because God is good. Because God is immutable, those morals never change. Morals from society change depending on the society. For instance native Americans held the highest regard for those who could count the most coup. In early American culture, facing an opponent in a duel was highly respected. Both of these displays of bravery are soundly condemned by modern standards. This applies not only to bravery but various other attributes. Fifty years ago it was shameful to be known as gay whereas today society praises those who identify as homosexual.

For me, I can’t keep up with the ever changing moral standards of the world. So I stick with the unchanging standards God has put forth.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I believe goodness (morals) come from God because God is good. Because God is immutable, those morals never change. Morals from society change depending on the society. For instance native Americans held the highest regard for those who could count the most coup. In early American culture, facing an opponent in a duel was highly respected. Both of these displays of bravery are soundly condemned by modern standards. This applies not only to bravery but various other attributes. Fifty years ago it was shameful to be known as gay whereas today society praises those who identify as homosexual.

For me, I can’t keep up with the ever changing moral standards of the world. So I stick with the unchanging standards God has put forth.

I'll say this much... the monotheistic gods possess some of the characteristics that would go along with objective morals. I didn't limit that to just the Christian God since multiple religions believe in a God that is an all-knowing and all-good Creator.

If objective morals came from God, then as you bring up, I would expect such a god to be immutable as opposed to changing their standards based on popularity, politics, and culture.

Have you watched any William Lane Craig debates where he debates on objective morals? If not, I think they are pretty good. I can post some of his debates on the topic here for anyone that's interested.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Dr. Craig explains his reasons for accepting Premise 2 - objective morals exist.

If I can find a better explanation I'll post it.

Basically, Dr. Craig argues that we know objective morals exist based on our moral experience and we learn from that. That probably gets into the feeling we get at hearing about some baby being deliberately killed, or someone being victimized, etc. I accept that this would show we have some moral sense but that is not enough to show that those morals are objective. Perhaps we can say that the capacity to act based on moral values or our conscience is objective. But I would imagine someone with a different set of moral standards, like a gay man, would have those same feelings and thoughts towards things that Christians wouldn't (e.g. the gay man feeling that he has to marry the man he loves or feeling that it's wrong to denying two gay men from being together). I can think of many more examples when it comes to politics where those on both sides think and feel that social issues (which would obviously differ between the two parties) are moral issues - one thinks and feels abortion is right, while the other thinks/feel it's wrong.

That's the problem of going by moral experience alone. It's inconsistent.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's a relevant thread that might support the existence of objective morals, i.e. we all know that there is a right and a wrong:

Thread 'Romans 2:14 and 15 says we know right from wrong. Is this view correct?'

Aug 1, 2024

Some Christians say that everyone knows deep down that God exists, and they know right from wrong. I want to focus on the latter.

Romans 2:14,15 (NIV)
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

I actually like the way the Catholics explain the laws of God since they divide...

• AgnosticBoy
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Christianity (section 2)