Romans 1:19 "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."
In yesterday's post, we labored to demonstrate that objective morality by its nature imposes itself on our obligation to carry out moral duties. This idea of "oughtness" implies a will or the ability to make a choice. To put it another way - the objective standards of right and wrong are not arbitrary - but are intentional. Hence, the Absolute Standard of Good cannot be just merely an abstract principle of morality - but an absolute Intelligence. Moreover, the concept of duty to these values means that you and I have a responsibility to excercise justice, fairness and to ensure that children do not get hurt nor thieves get away with stealing. The Absolute Standard of Good is One to Whom all human beings are accountable. Hence, there is only One Person who can fit the criteria: God.
Philosopher and Theologian Dr. William Lane Craig has crafted a sound and valid moral argument for the existence of God that aids in bridging the reality of objective moral values/duties to the existence of an All-Good (and thus Holy) God:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore, God exists.
The objective morality that we are contending for in today's post cannot be avoided. Truth by its very nature is defined as that quality which corresponds to reality. Hence, the world/universe in which we live is most accurately described by such values and duties. Chance and mere material reality could not had produced such morality. Natural selection, herd-mentality and other mechanisms typically cited by humanists and athiests cannot account for why we feel obligated to carry out moral duties.
How the moral argument for God's existence shows the fallacy of athiesm
Only a theistic worldview - that is to say - only a worldview that asserts believe in the existence of an All-Powerful God that is by His very nature All-Good (i.e "Holy") can account for why there are such objective moral duties.
As the first premise asserts: if God did not exist, then such values and duties would not exist. Notice, I am not saying that someone who denies God's existence cannot be a moral person. Quite the contrary. There are examples that I have seen of Atheists acting better in some cases than professing Christians.
Now here is what I am saying: why ought athiests, or believers in Jesus Christ - exercise moral duties? On atheism, there is no reason to be moral - since the world per Athiesm is nothing more than a random collection of atoms and material objects, spawned by chance and heading toward an eventual cold and dark cosmic oblivion. And yet, Athiests do moral things. They may say that as human beings we ought to be leaving the world a better place than when we found it. But why?
I would contend that the first premise knocks out the Atheistic worldview's contention that there is no God, being that there is indeed objective moral values and duties. The second premise asserts the reality of objective moral values and duties, with the third premise following logically and conclusively from the soundness of the first two premises, namely: "God exists".