A Moral Argument for God's existence

[XIII]

Inspired by another thread of the same nature and a discussion on the Existence of God thread, I've decided to start a thread on this topic.

The Moral Argument
as formulated by William Lane Craig

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C. Therefore, God exists.

Why it's plausible:

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

This premise concerns the ontological foundation for our affirmation of the objectivity of our moral values and duties. When we say that something is objective (in the context of the argument), what we mean is something's being right or wrong independently of anybody's opinion. An example would be rape's being wrong regardless of whether in some hypothetical world, everyone thinks it's right.

“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
- Paul Kurtz, Forbidden Fruit, 65.

The premise proposes that if God does not exist, then no other viable alternative could exist that would plausibly ground the objectivity of our moral values and duties. Naturalism simply doesn't ground our moral values and duties because the evolutionary process is blind 'with no prevision of the ends they were achieving'. To the evolutionary process, morality is nothing more than a subjective illusion foisted upon us by human herd morality which found it profitable.

In comparison to P1, P2 is relatively simple:
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

From where the conclusion follows logically from the premises, God exists. So, thoughts?

[Gaidin]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The big problem here is that you don't prove either P1 or P2. For the sake of the major point here I'll give you P1 as an assumption as it's an implication and not an actual thing to be proved to an extent(P1: P2->C in a nutshell) . You show nothing to make P2 legit. When you want to handwave this stuff you should at least wave your hands. You didn't do anything.

[XIII]

@ Gaidin

It seems to be short because it's just a summary to get the discussion going. If I post an entire essay, people aren't likely to read it so much as to skim it and all my effort will have been wasted.

Anyway, why P2 is plausible: I would submit that P2 is plausible in light of our moral experience. In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of objective moral values that we live out in our day-to-day lives. In a sense, it is metaphysically obvious that objective moral values and duties do exist, just as it is obvious that the external world of physical objects exist.

Any argument you can give regarding the existence of objective moral values, you can give a parallel argument about the existence of the physical world (being that both realms are perceived subjectively).

---

@LegionnaireX

The argument lays out two premises, and out of those premises arrives at a logical conclusion. Now are those two premises plausibly true? Let's examine each one and your objections to them:


P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

You object that Moral Objectivity can exist without God and it's interesting to see that the only reason you give for this conclusion is that morality can be achieved without reference to God. You opine that there are plenty of civilizations that had morality without seeing the need to invoke whether one, two or three gods.

But this objection is to miss the point. We're not saying to be moral you need to believe in God, we're saying that for morality to be objective, you need God to exist.

If God does not exist, then neither the atheist nor the theist has a basis for the objectivity of moral values and duties. That's the premise not, "if you do not believe in God, then there is no basis your moral values and duties".


P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Certainly, the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim. I don't deny that which is why I responded to Gaidin's post above. Anyway, the reason Craig seems to presuppose the objectivity of moral values and duties is because his opponents also presuppose it. It makes no sense to debate or expound on a topic both sides agree on.


C. Therefore, God exists.

If the premises are valid and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, then you cannot deny the conclusion. Which is why every objection to the argument must be made in reference to either a fault in the logic or a fault in the premises. You have two responses:

1. God is not the only possible source of objective morality.

The problem with this is, of course, that this is not an objection to the conclusion, but an objection to premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

In any case, what other possible sources could there be? I maintain that there are none because all the others fail or are less credible than the theistic hypothesis. I'm aware of only one: evolutionary naturalism, but as I've outline in the OP this explanation fails.

2. It makes no reference to which God it proves.

This is irrelevant. The argument makes no reference to any theological presuppositions. It can be given by a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu or even a Buddhist. The Moral Argument proves theism not any particular brand of theism.

Think of it like this: I'm trying to prove that a rock exists.
You object: But what kind of rock? Rough? Smooth? Volcanic?
And I respond: Well, who cares. I'm just trying to prove the rock itself.

Finally, I agree that evolution is a very powerful biological explanation. I expect that you'll make more objections along these lines so I'll hold my case until we talk more on the subject.

Good post! Cheers.

[Gaidin]

@ Gaidin

It seems to be short because it's just a summary to get the discussion going. If I post an entire essay, people aren't likely to read it so much as to skim it and all my effort will have been wasted.

Anyway, why P2 is plausible: I would submit that P2 is plausible in light of our moral experience. In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of objective moral values that we live out in our day-to-day lives. In a sense, it is metaphysically obvious that objective moral values and duties do exist, just as it is obvious that the external world of physical objects exist.

Any argument you can give regarding the existence of objective moral values, you can give a parallel argument about the existence of the physical world (being that both realms are perceived subjectively).

Anyway so now that we have the handwaving, about all you have going for you here is word association. Murder is generally considered wrong in any society. But the definition of murder will change from society to society. More specifically, there will be arguments of whether a certain action will be murder. It may be in one society but it may not be in another. P2 is not plausible when considered from an open-system society standpoint.

[XIII]

Anyway so now that we have the handwaving, about all you have going for you here is word association. Murder is generally considered wrong in any society. But the definition of murder will change from society to society. More specifically, there will be arguments of whether a certain action will be murder. It may be in one society but it may not be in another. P2 is not plausible when considered from an open-system society standpoint.

First, let's define terms: when I say objective, I mean something being right or wrong independently of anybody's opinion. For example, tolerance is objectively right even if (at the risk of Godwin's Law) the Nazis had won WW2 and enforced an ethic of racial intolerance.

A sort of objective morality that cuts across all cultures and societies. Rape is wrong even in South Africa. Murder is wrong even in Somalia. Torture is wrong even in the Soviet Union. That is what the premise is claiming. (The universal declaration of human rights is an example of P2 at work.)

Why P2 is plausible:

1. The alternative is blatantly implausible.

As outlined above, it is implausible to the extreme to think that if the Nazis had won WW2, the Holocaust would have become a morally good thing to do.

2. It is grounded in experience.

Day-to-day, we apprehend a realm of objective moral values and is thus a very plausible form of empirical verification. Every day that you condemn the atrocities of the Taliban or the dictatorship of Kim-Jong-Il, you prove P2.

There are yet more, but I think this should be enough for the moment. Cheers.

[LegionnaireX]

If God does not exist, then neither the atheist nor the theist has a basis for the objectivity of moral values and duties. That's the premise not, "if you do not believe in God, then there is no basis your moral values and duties".

From a humanist perspective, one must base ones moral values on the prospect of improving the utility of the whole. In laymans terms: morality is based on the golden rule. People do what they believe is in their best interest, and in a society everyone's best interests are mutual most of the time.

Another interesting question is whether or not we need to base our moral values on anything at all. If we must base them on anything, why don't we base them on the mutual desire to survive? That is the most concrete, objective thing people have: life. Without moral values, we will not survive.

In any case, what other possible sources could there be? I maintain that there are none because all the others fail or are less credible than the theistic hypothesis. I'm aware of only one: evolutionary naturalism, but as I've outline in the OP this explanation fails.

I don't remember you showing how that explanation fails, but you've certainly not dealt with my explanation from the post above. I don't believe you will disagree that the need for a moral code stems from the social nature of man. We must interact with one another. We instinctually group together. Thus, we have biological and social need for a mutually understood system by which to interact with each other. As I demonstrated, morality is certainly not objective in the sense that all people are compelled to treat all other people in the same way. Look to your own bible for numerous examples of ethnocentric behavior on the part of the Israelites (eg. thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal, yet Yahweh commands the murder, pillaging and enslavement of all native Levantine societies).

[SlartyBartfast]

Gwen: If he was the Son of God and made all those miracles
Gwen: There *must* have been miracle stories from his younger years
Gaidin: He changed water to wine as a teenager.
Gwen: I'm sure.
Gwen: Mary: "Where did you get that alcohol?! Did you steal it?"
Gwen: Jesus: "Uhh... no.. I.. uh..."
Gwen: Commence biggest lie ever.

He took after His mother then:

Joseph: So then explain to me how your stomach grew that big when we haven't even shagged yet?
Mary: Uhh... um... er... ...God put it there...? Yeah, that's right--God did it!

That was when the biggest lie ever truly commenced.


I believe you need to prove premise 2 before you reach any conclusion. Perhaps this is not the right thread to mention it, but the objectivity of moral values is far from a foregone conclusion.

[Jack04]

If God does not exist, then neither the atheist nor the theist has a basis for the objectivity of moral values and duties. That's the premise not, "if you do not believe in God, then there is no basis your moral values and duties".

Which is to assume no underlying tendencies of human behaviour. For example, you could easily propose that the morality of our species is simply an extension of a "pack" morality, which in itself is simply an extension of a family morality. I rather suspect that in studying other, more primitive pack animals, one would find a basic set of "morals" that a family/pack live by and, more specifically, paternal instincts. If we assume that morality is based around the benefit of your immediate social group (i.e family, for all intents and purposes), is that not some form of objectivity?

P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Really? You see no moral variation in humanity? Certainly at the most fundamental level there appears to be a certain degree of consistency (as has already been mentioned, theft, murder, etc. are almost universally seen as morally unwholesome) but at the more intricate level there are a broad spectrum of moral beliefs.

1. God is not the only possible source of objective morality.

The problem with this is, of course, that this is not an objection to the conclusion, but an objection to premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

In any case, what other possible sources could there be? I maintain that there are none because all the others fail or are less credible than the theistic hypothesis. I'm aware of only one: evolutionary naturalism, but as I've outline in the OP this explanation fails.

An equally valid criticism being that your second point is false. If you're considering morals to be truly objective, do they not hold for all creatures?

[LegionnaireX]

I've seen Dr. Craig debate. The man is quite eloquent. To an intellectual light weight his arguments make sense, but under the surface they fall apart utterly.

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

False. Moral objectivty can easily exist without God being the root cause if the population agrees on a set of moral principles. eg. murder and theft are wrong. There has never been a civilization in which murder and theft were tolerated, whether said civilization believed in one, three, or no gods. Now, murder and theft between different civilizations is a different story. I will get to that later.

P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

While my example above loosely suggests that a primitive sense of morality transcends all cultures, the burden of proof that objective morality does exist is on Dr. Craig. In the debate I saw him in, he simply assumed the truth value of this claim without providing evidence.

C. Therefore, God exists.

There are multiple problems with this statement. First, Craig must provide objective evidence that such a God is the only possible source of moral understanding. He never does this. Secondly, which God is he referring to? There are thousands of religious systems in the world from which people claim to receive moral guidance, and many of these systems are in direct conflict with one another. Craig is a devout Evangelist, and in his debates he basically defers to this God being Jesus, because it couldn't be anyone else in his mind. In the debate I watched he tried to claim that there was a scholarly consensus among historians that Jesus of Nazareth in fact rose from the dead. That is absurd. Unfortunately his opponent wasn't organized enough to fire back.

Naturalism simply doesn't ground our moral values and duties because the evolutionary process is blind 'with no prevision of the ends they were achieving'. To the evolutionary process, morality is nothing more than a subjective illusion foisted upon us by human herd morality which found it profitable.

Unfortunately we don't get to choose the world we live in. If we live in a world without objective morality, then we live in a world without objective morality. Thats it.

And that last sentence is absolutely true and I'm going to demonstrate why:

Morality, objective or not, is a system biologically and socially designed to protect a group. Humans are tribal by nature, and typically a tribe will have a moral consensus amongst itself. This consensus, however, begins to break down when faced with rival tribes. Humans will look after their own tribe first, and elevate the well being of their tribe above the well being of other tribes. The moral code applied to one's own tribe does not directly apply to outsiders. As a biological rule, altruism does not exist. There is a selfish motivation for nearly every action one can take. A person will act in his own interest. If it does not benefit him to steal or kill, he will not steal or kill. If it does benefit him, he will not. In a healthy "tribe", it would never benefit someone to kill his own kind. Similarly, a tribe will act in its own interest. If trade with a rival tribe is beneficial to itself, it will trade. If a rival tribe is sitting on resources necessary for the surival of the tribe, that tribe will raid, pillage and conquer in order to ensure its own survival.

This idea literally explains everything about the human condition and human history. The human animal is social, territorial, and opportunistic. As civilizations developed, tribes became city-states, and city-states became nation-states. Ever wonder how killing in war is justified? The answer is above. To this day, we don't apply the same moral standards to interactions with people outside of our "tribes." The tribes are just a whole lot bigger.

[Denny Crane!]

So many assumptions, its been covered quite thoroughly but let me first say this. How do we determine objectivity since God does not reveal his intentions. It seems that religious people cherry pick just as easily as a relativist would.

Why just a God? Why not many, which God? Why not thousands of Gods?

[Ozzmosis]

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
WRONG
Simple group and community dynamics can be seen as "objective moral values and duties" and are determined by genes and common sense (if you murder your neighbour for food, your other neighbour will distrust you, but if you are nice to both of them, they can help you too)
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
ARGUABLE
While certain things, such as not raping, murdering and stealing are abhorred by practically all civilisations, that's more to do with the fact that the civilisation wouldn't work if everyone was doing that to each other, it's got nothing to do with "god".

[kesa82]

While certain things, such as not raping, murdering and stealing are abhorred by practically all civilisations, that's more to do with the fact that the civilisation wouldn't work if everyone was doing that to each other, it's got nothing to do with "god".

Loaded argument. It would appear that the species got along just fine WITHOUT any civilization for 10,000 years. Who says civilization, or tribes either, or even man himself, serves some imperative of ( the God ) Evolution ?

A hermit living in a cave who hasn't seen another human for 20 years might still feel bad about kicking his useless ( it doesn't hunt for him or guard the place or anything, it just lays around and eats ) dog.

[Himster]

Loaded argument. It would appear that the species got along just fine WITHOUT any civilization for 10,000 years.

Having a life expetancy of 20 years is not "fine". Dying from the simplest diseases is not "fine". Having to regularly resort to cannabilism is not "fine". Eeking out an existence on the cusp of exinction is not "fine".

Who says civilization, or tribes either, or even man himself, serves some imperative of ( the God ) Evolution ?

The imperative is survival: so everyone (that isn't ignorant/moronic) says that.

A hermit living in a cave who hasn't seen another human for 20 years might still feel bad about kicking his useless ( it doesn't hunt for him or guard the place or anything, it just lays around and eats ) dog.

It's called empathy. Ever heard of it? Only people with brain damage don't feel it.

[SigniferOne]

Having a life expetancy of 20 years is not "fine". Dying from the simplest diseases is not "fine". Having to regularly resort to cannabilism is not "fine". Eeking out an existence on the cusp of exinction is not "fine".

Why not?

When science advances to where we live for 120-150+ years, is today's life of 50 or 60 years a 'moral travesty'? that must be attended to 'as soon as possible'?

You place exorbitant emphasis on physical pleasures, all of which are relative and ultimately meaningless.

Fist off, I'd like to point out that you understood perfectly what objectivity means in that it is mind-independent. Remember, I defined objectivity as being independent of anybody's opinion? This is what I meant.

Notice an interesting fact: you are trying to define objectivity, to grasp it, and explain it to others to the best of your ability. It is important to you. Now notice all of the atheists here -- to them objectivity of a fiction, and what's more, something contemptible, something that is beneath sufficiently refined and intellectual beings who understand that nothing exists, nothing matters, and nothing has any meaning.

Now --

Notice what science is based on. Science is based on investigating the material world, and having full innocent confidence that nothing will permanently prevent our total understanding of the natural world. Which is also governed by inalienable, universal laws. Objective and objective, every inch, space, and comma of science are based on objectivity, and would disappear as soon as objectivity would cease to exist.

In short, these atheists are against science, and atheism is against science. You, a religionist whom they wouldn't pause to describe as a science-hater, advance everything that makes science possible. While they, they self-proclaimed champions of rationality, spit on rationality when it ceases to be a convenience, and spread the doctrine of unobjectivity and non-science to any person mistaken enough to listen.

I don't mention, of course, the utter havoc inflicted on Morality.

[Jack04]

Notice what science is based on. Science is based on investigating the material world, and having full innocent confidence that nothing will permanently prevent our total understanding of the natural world. Which is also governed by inalienable, universal laws. Objective and objective, every inch, space, and comma of science are based on objectivity, and would disappear as soon as objectivity would cease to exist.

In short, these atheists are against science, and atheism is against science. You, a religionist whom they wouldn't pause to describe as a science-hater, advance everything that makes science possible. While they, they self-proclaimed champions of rationality, spit on rationality when it ceases to be a convenience, and spread the doctrine of unobjectivity and non-science to any person mistaken enough to listen.

I don't mention, of course, the utter havoc inflicted on Morality.

Wow, only just noticed this. Firstly and most importantly, science does not assume that it is possible to understand everything about our universe. In fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that certain aspects of the history of our universe are beyond our grasp (thanks to the constant speed of light, for example).

Secondly, science does make two initial assumptions, of spatial and temporal consistency. I suppose, were we to twist that into the language of morality, that would be consistent with objectivity. However, there are a number of key differences, the primary (and most important one) being that the two initial assumptions are very much open to question. In fact, as I have mentioned previously, the very laws of the conservation of energy and momentum provide an acid test of the initial assumptions of science. Were these assumptions demonstrated to be false, they would clearly be dropped (or, more likely, adapted), which precisely represents the atheist view. There is nothing wrong with justified initial assumptions (which those two initial scientific assumptions are, we have never observed a spatial or temporal variance of physical laws) as long as they are not set in stone. Moral objectivity on the other hand, isn't particularly well justified. It might be possible to justify an assumption of base objectivity (common principles like the moral rejection of murder, for example) within our own species but there is, as far as I'm aware, no justification for the assumption that complete objectivity exists within our species, let alone as a property of the universe as a whole.

Nope. With God they are able to overcome being animals, and become human.

So at which evolutionary point did man stop existing as an animal?

This claim has been debunked time and time again, and has been shown to have no scientific credibility behind it. Furthermore, it is immoral.

Which claim? That other, primitive mammals share a certain amount of basic "morality" which may explain a degree of human morality? I fail to see how such a claim is immoral. It simply describes a potential origin of morality. I would appreciate a link to the "debunking" of whichever claim you refer to, of course.

No, because then you're simply extending morality just for yourself, with morality just for your family group. What's good for your social group is moral there. In other words it is nothing more than relative morality once again.

Relative to what? Extending the umbrella of "social group" to, "species as a whole" and you have no morality left to be relative to.

XIII's claim was that "Objective moral values and duties do exist", not that people are infallible in perceiving and understanding them. The number of people who misunderstand scientific laws does not prove that the scientific laws do not exist.

In which case, one needs to demonstrate the existence of that objectivity. As far as I can consider, there is no real way of making such demonstrations beyond observing the underlying morality of humanity for common traits. Otherwise, objective morality is an unjustified assumption.

[Gordon Freynman]

Now notice all of the atheists here -- to them objectivity of a fiction

Actually no. That's a pretty wild generalization there, even for you.

[Gaidin]

You haven't yet demonstrated that different actions will hold the same level of morality from one society to the next so you can't assume that morality is objective.

[XIII]

You haven't yet demonstrated that different actions will hold the same level of morality from one society to the next so you can't assume that morality is objective.

But how an action is regarded in the society in which it is made is irrelevant to it's objective moral value. Honor killings, for example, is an example of an action that is highly regarded in the less civilized portions of Turkey and Pakistan yet I am sure that you would agree with me that regardless, regardless of what the Turks and Pakistanis think of honor killings, honor killing is really, objectively, morally wrong.

Or another example, the genocide of the Jews is really, objectively, morally wrong regardless of what Adolf Hitler, himself, thought.

[Gaidin]

But how an action is regarded in the society in which it is made is irrelevant to it's objective moral value. Honor killings, for example, is an example of an action that is highly regarded in the less civilized portions of Turkey and Pakistan yet I am sure that you would agree with me that regardless, regardless of what the Turks and Pakistanis think of honor killings, honor killing is really, objectively, morally wrong.

The gauging of the morality of actions is dependent on the actions as well as the society's definition of such morals and ethics. If honor killings are not considered murder in various regions of Turkey and Pakistan then you have a clear breach of the idea of objective morality as two different societies hold the same actions at different levels of moral acceptance. This is a clear indication that morality between these two(three even) societies is not objectively defined. These societies are not single closed systems, but are in fact open systems with outside influences in the form of other societies(both past and present) so making such a statement is fallacious at best, outright wrong at worst.

Or another example, the genocide of the Jews is really, objectively, morally wrong regardless of what Adolf Hitler thought.

Stop banking your argument on an appeal to the emotion of the holocaust and address the logical hole in what you are trying to say.

[XIII]

The gauging of the morality of actions is dependent on the actions as well as the society's definition of such morals and ethics. If honor killings are not considered murder in various regions of Turkey and Pakistan then you have a clear breach of the idea of objective morality as two different societies hold the same actions at different levels of moral acceptance. This is a clear indication that morality between these two(three even) societies is not objectively defined. These societies are not single closed systems, but are in fact open systems with outside influences in the form of other societies(both past and present) so making such a statement is fallacious at best, outright wrong at worst.

Do not equate the two words, universality and objectivity, to mean the same thing. To say that something is objectively wrong is not to say that it must be universally held to be wrong. The roundness of the earth is an objective fact yet that is not a fact universally held by all. It's still a fact, however.

Stop banking your argument on an appeal to the emotion of the holocaust and address the logical hole in what you are trying to say.

I'm not.
Remember, I outlined two reasons why P2 is plausibly true.