The sources define the Moral Argument as a proof for God’s existence that relies on the reality of objective moral values—values that are right or wrong regardless of an individual’s or society’s subjective opinion. The argument is primarily structured through a logical syllogism: if objective moral values exist, there must be an objective Lawgiver to ground them; because these values clearly exist, God must exist.
The sources break down this argument into several key components:
1. The Syllogism of the Argument
The basic argument is presented in the following premises:
- Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
- Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
- Conclusion: God exists.
Alternatively, the sources cite a more detailed version used in philosophical debates: if any individual or society can be criticized for a “real moral wrong,” there must be a “higher law” that transcends local and temporary codes. Since we can and do criticize actions like genocide or child abuse as objectively wrong, an objective standard must exist.
2. The Concept of Objective Morality
The sources argue that most rational people recognize that some actions are innately evil and others are innately good. They use the example of the Nazi regime, noting that even prominent atheists have admitted that the murder of six million Jews was an “objective moral wrong”. This implies that morality is not just a personal feeling or a “private fancy” but a sense of justice that is “full of sense” and points to a standard outside of the natural world.
3. Morality as a Metaphysical Reality
The argument defines moral values and human rights as “metaphysical entities”—realities that exist beyond what is perceptible to the senses. The sources note that you cannot find human rights in a CT scan or by “cutting someone open”; they are not empirical things but are deeply held metaphysical convictions.
4. The Contrast with Atheism
A central part of the definition involves the claim that atheism cannot logically explain morality. The sources argue that:
- Nature is indifferent: In a purely materialistic universe, man is just “matter in motion”. Chemicals, rocks, and animals are not “immoral” when they act; a pig is not “corrupt” for eating its young, and a killer whale is not “guilty of murder”.
- Atheistic admissions: The sources point to atheists like Richard Dawkins and William Provine, who admit that in a godless universe, there is “no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” and “no ultimate foundation for ethics”.
- The necessity of God: If there is no God, then “everything is indeed permitted” (as stated by Jean-Paul Sartre), because there are no values or commands to justify behavior. Therefore, the existence of any binding moral obligation proves a supernatural Creator.
5. The Purpose of Suffering
The sources also use the Moral Argument to address the “problem of evil.” They suggest that the very existence of “evil” or “suffering” paradoxically proves God, because “evil” cannot be defined or recognized unless there is an objective standard of “straight” (good) to compare it against. Without God, an atheist has no rational way to label anything as “bad” or “wrong”—they are merely reactions determined by the “laws of physics” in a “meat robot”.