The Moral Argument for God's Existence

The moral argument for the existence of God is the argument that God is necessary for objective moral values or duties to exist. Since objective moral values and duties do exist, God must also exist. The argument is not claiming that people who don't believe in God cannot do kind things or that atheists are generally morally worse people that religious people are. The argument is claiming that the only reason such kind actions can be thought of as truly being morally good in any real or objective sense is that the atheist is wrong about God. Such actions are objectively good because God actually does exist, even if the atheist doesn't believe He exists. Just as those who deny germs exists can still get sick because germs really do exist, those who deny God exists can still do good things because God really does exist, and so a real standard of good does exist to make "doing good" possible.

https://carm.org/moral-argument

@dj2becker said
The moral argument for the existence of God is the argument that God is necessary for objective moral values or duties to exist. Since objective moral values and duties do exist, God must also exist. The argument is not claiming that people who don't believe in God cannot do kind things or that atheists are generally morally worse people that religious people are. The argum ...[text shortened]... a real standard of good does exist to make "doing good" possible.

https://carm.org/moral-argument

@rwingett

There is no such thing as "objective" morality. All morality is subjective and could be otherwise. The mistake theists make is to assume that this subjective nature makes it worthless, or that you can't have values at all without an objective base from which to evaluate them.

@rwingett said
There is no such thing as "objective" morality. All morality is subjective and could be otherwise. The mistake theists make is to assume that this subjective nature makes it worthless, or that you can't have values at all without an objective base from which to evaluate them.

@sonship said
@rwingett

There is no such thing as "objective" morality. All morality is subjective and could be otherwise. The mistake theists make is to assume that this subjective nature makes it worthless, or that you can't have values at all without an objective base from which to evaluate them.

rwingett, I get the impression from your posts that you highly rega ...[text shortened]... his way. Before human beings even existed in this universe was selfishness bad and generosity good ?

@dj2becker said
We are as certain that there are real virtues, evils, and injustices as we are that there are real rocks, trees, and other human beings. In fact, we are more certain. Imagine for a moment that a man realized that all of life really was just a dream. Now imagine this man's reaction to this was to rush out into his dream world and begin raping all the women and bashing all th ...[text shortened]... indness or deafness.

https://carm.org/moral-argument

Did you bother to read the link I posted?

@rwingett said
I greatly value egalitarianism and equality. But I do so subjectively. There is no objective reason why a society that practices human sacrifice, or that maintains extreme levels of inequality, is wrong. They are only wrong because we subjectively, and collectively, say so.

Because I recognize that my beliefs are subjective, does not mean that I uphold them any less fervently.

@sonship said
@rwingett

There is no such thing as "objective" morality. All morality is subjective and could be otherwise. The mistake theists make is to assume that this subjective nature makes it worthless, or that you can't have values at all without an objective base from which to evaluate them.

rwingett, I get the impression from your posts that you highly rega ...[text shortened]... his way. Before human beings even existed in this universe was selfishness bad and generosity good ?

@rwingett

I greatly value egalitarianism and equality. But I do so subjectively. There is no objective reason why a society that practices human sacrifice, or that maintains extreme levels of inequality, is wrong. They are only wrong because we subjectively, and collectively, say so.

Because I recognize that my beliefs are subjective, does not mean that I uphold them any less fervently.

@dj2becker said
If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?

@sonship said
@rwingett

[quote] I greatly value egalitarianism and equality. But I do so subjectively. There is no objective reason why a society that practices human sacrifice, or that maintains extreme levels of inequality, is wrong. They are only wrong because we subjectively, and collectively, say so.

Because I recognize that my beliefs are subjective, does not mean that I uphol ...[text shortened]... ense.

This gives rise to the question "If man is then the measure of all things, which man ?"

@rwingett said
Perhaps. History has shown that public opinion coalesces around certain moral standards, which, invariably, shift with time. But these are wholly subjective. Look at the acceptance of slavery within the bible. We largely view this as being reprehensible today.

@dj2becker said
I don't think the Bible describes slavery as being a good thing. The Bible is all about setting the captives free.

Out of interest, if you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?

@rwingett said
The value judgements of all of mankind are determined by the society they were born into, and modified by their own personal experience. If you were born into Aztec society, or Viking society, your value judgements would be radically different than those of liberal democracies. But over generations these values may change a bit at a time. It is a form of cultural evolution.

@dj2becker said
If you say you got your morality from society, then which society has the right moral system when they contradict each other?