The Moral Argument


  Please watch the great introductory video at 

The moral argument for God’s existence is as follows:
1) If objective/absolute moral values exist, then God must exist.
2) Objective/absolute moral values do exist.
3) Therefore, God must exist

     How do we explain a sense of morality that is pretty much the same for virtually every person on the planet? Why should a moral sense exist at all? Some people would say that as we evolved from single celled organisms (Darwinian evolution), that our morality evolved along with it. Outside of there being no proof of this at all, are these people really saying morality has its origins in chemicals and blind chance? If so, then our evolved morality has no objective basis. Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett & Sam Harris believe this. They think our morality stems from self-preservation that evolution has imbued us with. But they readily concede that they cannot explain why people risk their lives to save others, or why people give blood, or why missionaries devote their life to helping others, or why people minister to the sick & dying, or why Christians teach us to “love your enemies”. The whole point of morality is that you are doing what you ‘ought’ to do, not what is in your genes or survival instincts to do. They cannot explain where this ‘ought’ comes from. Christians explain it by saying God imprinted His moral code unto our conscience.  Granted our conscience can become ‘seared’ from not listening to God’s guiding but to others leadings. And according to the Bible, we are in a ‘fallen’ state, so our conscience is fallen also.

     David Silverman, President of American Atheists, said, “There is no objective moral standard…it (moral decisions) is a matter of opinion.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, atheist philosopher, said that because God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted. Philosopher Richard Taylor said, “ to say that something is wrong because it is forbidden by God is…understandable to anyone who believes in a law-abiding God. But to say that something is wrong (without believing in God) is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God.”
Philosopher Michael Ruse says, “…ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate…ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.”


Atheist philosopher William Provine said, “there is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans either (because our genes determine our actions).”

     You either believe that morals are absolute (the same for everyone) or relative (not the same for everyone).
– if they are the relative, what do we do when my morals interact with yours?
– if they are absolute, whose absolutes do we use?

     The impossibility of denying absolute morals:
To deny absolutes, you have to make an absolute denial…this is self-contradicting. It is a suicide statement. Example; I can absolutely state that there are no absolutes.
There must be an absolute to which all things are relative
Those who oppose your values will replace them with their own. But if morality is relative, why do this? Who said theirs is better than yours. This would involve judgment against a standard, which relative moralists don’t believe in. Do you see the illogic in this?
If morality is not absolute, why teach our children not to lie? Or to be kind? Or to oppose genocide?


     Many things are universal as being right or wrong…
– cruelty to children
– rape
– murder without cause
– love
– respect for others, etc.

Values or morality don’t change greatly from one culture to another but they’re expressions do.
Just because some cultures have values that are different from our culture, doesn’t mean that values are relative. It could mean that some values are morally inferior to others, like polygamy or cannibalism.
The acid test…when talking with someone who says they believe in relative morality, treat them disrespectfully and watch their reaction. They expect you to treat them & their ideas respectfully, thereby establishing an absolute value (that we should treat people with respect). A nation that believes in relative morality will never produce a social reformer like Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King, Jr. How could they? Social reformers always refer to an absolute morality.


To the person who believes that abortion should be legal, they don’t want to live by your absolutes but they want you to live by theirs. We all have our own set of morals but, let’s face it, those morals may change over time. If absolutes aren’t unchanging & eternal, they’re nothing more than relative morality over longer periods of time. This is why we need a transcendent (above human thought) source for our morals. This source needs to be eternal & unchangeable. That’s why Christians choose God’s morals because He made us and knows us better than we know ourselves.  We don’t choose God because He’s our God, but because He is THE God, the creator of us all.
Some may say “But I don’t believe in your God”. This doesn’t change anything. Ignoring or disagreeing with a truth doesn’t make it less true. Sincerity of belief doesn’t make your belief true. You can be sincerely wrong.
Most people who claim to live by relative morality, don’t! They just live by another set of absolute morals. Everyone lives by some set of absolute morals. The question then becomes by whose set of absolute morals do we live by? This is why the United States founding fathers made no bones about who God was. He was the Christian God. Their morality was the Christian morality. You didn’t have to be a believer but you had to live under laws that were made under Christian influence.

     A good example of this is the American & French revolutions.
The French revolution was based on the “perfectibility of man”, that if you gave him the right social structures, his innate goodness would come out. So they concentrated power into a very few men to help bring this about. This revolution devolved into the Reign of Terror, after which a dictator (Napoleon Bonaparte) moved in. The French have had at least 8 constitutions since then.


     The American revolution was based on the biblical concept of the ‘imperfectibility of man’ (or his fallenness). This is why we diluted power into 3 branches of government, so no one man (or a few men) would have too much power. Our system of ‘checks and balances’ counteracted this.  This motto became “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Our system of government has lasted for over 200 years with one Constitution. Our Constitution gives us freedom of religion but under the umbrella of the Christian God. No other religions produce this amount of freedom.

     This is why any other absolute will not allow for the maximum amount of freedom, given mankinds fallen nature. Read John 8:32 and Romans 1:25.
This is why many people feel that Jesus gave us the highest ethical teachings EVER. Many unbelievers even acknowledge this.


     Consider the following points:
A…don’t confuse morals with their expressions. Hindu’s don’t eat meat, Christians do. But Hindu’s don’t eat meat because of their belief in reincarnation. They believe if you eat meat, you could be eating your deceased Aunt Mary. Both Hindu’s & Christians believe you shouldn’t engage in cannibalism (eating deceased Aunt Mary) but they express it differently.
B…without an objective moral standard that doesn’t change, you couldn’t say that something like murder is always wrong. You can only say it’s not your preference or it’s against the agreed upon rules that a group of people have set.
C…we shouldn’t deny absolute morals just because we have trouble knowing the answer in a few different situations.
D…Princeton University professor & Darwinist Peter Singer has used Darwinism to assert that “the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee”. He believes that parents should be able to kill their newborn babies until 28 days after they’re born. The immediate question that pops to mind is “Why 28 days?”. What’s the difference between 28 days and 2 years?
E…James Rachels, author of “Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism”, says that because we humans are animals, that we could be used as laboratory subjects or even as food for other people or animals (shades of the 1970’s movie Soylent Green).
F…the experiments the Nazi’s did on humans can’t really be condemned by darwinists as from the Nazi viewpoint, they were trying to better their race by these experiments.
G…consistent darwinists can only consider murder or rape as personal dislikes, not real moral wrongs.
H…in real life, most people believe in an objective, absolute moral standard. They just haven’t thought it thru enough to realize this.


Reference books:
“I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Geisler & Turek
“What’s So Great about Christianity” by Dinesh D’Souza
“Jesus Is Involved in Politics” by Neil Mammen

Reference websites:


For His Kingdom,
Dave Maynard