I have to admit that the moral argument is my favorite for the existence of God.  I’m not for sure if it is the most convincing for others (I would say that goes to the Cosmological and Teleological arguments).  However, the moral argument is my favorite.

The reason it is my favorite is because as soon as someone makes an ethical claim (i.e. something is right, wrong, just, unjust, etc…), they prove the point of the argument.  Once someone starts speaking in terms of right and wrong then they must answer the question, where does the idea of “right” and “wrong” come from?  When a child first learns to say that is “unfair” we have proof that humans have the ability to view things in moral categories.  Anytime someone is upset about the action or lack of action of another then once again they are faced with why do humans have the capacity for morality?

Let me give you three popular objections to the moral argument and why I think they are lacking:

The first is actually one that was given in the comments of my last post on the subject (click here to see the post and comments).  The person stated that if we have a sense of morality within us, then why are people so immoral.  Basically, the person denies that we as humans have a moral conscienceness. However, his problem should be obvious.  The individual is attempting to deny the moral argument, by arguing from a moral standard (i.e. people are immoral).  He is basically saying there is no moral conscienceness because people do things that are immoral.  However, if there is no moral conscienceness then how can he judge something to be immoral!  The person basically proves the argument.

Next post will look at the final two objections.

Sign-Up for the Monthly Newsletter and tell your friends about the site.

Share