#6: Five Formulations of the Moral Argument for God’s Existence, Part 1 (of 3)

(For much-more information about this blog, see the home page at https://reasonbasedfaith.com/.)

In the process of writing this, I realized afresh that the philosophical considerations affecting the Moral Argument are many and varied. In my rough drafts of this post, I had so much material to work with; it became obvious that I was virtually forced to split this draft into parts 1, 2, and 3. (And yes, my plan is to post Part 2 next.)

A “section” in my posts is a group of paragraphs delineated by a numbered sub-heading. There are nineteen sections to this post, sixteen of which have substantive content. (#17 is an offer to follow my blog, an explanation of why I chose the above photo for the featured image, and a brief description of the Bible in this photo; #18 is a list of resources on apologetics—i.e. on evidences and reasons for God; #19 contains lists of recommended videos, including On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics?)

Here are just two sections on the ongoing pandemic:

1. Latest thoughts on the pandemic

I’ll provide my latest thoughts on the pandemic in this section, and in the next section attempt to answer the question, “When will this pandemic be over?”

I’m well-aware that a significant portion of the U.S. population does not practice consistent mask-wearing in public and social distancing. But I would like to think that every reader of this blog does; my last (fifth) post, in summarizing and commenting on Professor Erin Bromage’s informative post, explains why. It’s based on how the Coronavirus spreads: it spreads through the air and on surfaces that we touch. If we inhale enough viral particles to constitute an infectious dose OR if we touch a surface with plenty of viral particles on it and then touch our eyes, nostrils, or mouth without washing our hands first, then we risk becoming infected. Those who are infected can sneeze or cough out, potentially, millions of viral particles, while an infectious dose is a mere thousand. For more, see my last (fifth) post and Professor Bromage’s informative post.

Thus, we are still very-much in the midst of this Coronavirus pandemic, and, in order to preserve our health (and possibly our lives), it should be obvious that it’s the wisest thing to consistently practice mask-wearing in public, social distancing (staying 6 feet or about 2 meters apart, at minimum), and frequent handwashing.

I should specify this: victory over COVID is possible; everyone doesn’t have to get it. I live in a facility with 224 staff and residents. On June 30th, ALL of us were tested for COVID. ALL 224 tests were negative; NO ONE had COVID!

Why? I believe it’s because the policies here are very strict in this regard, about COVID precautions. EVERYONE is required to wear a mask in public and to practice social distancing. We are also encouraged to wash our hands frequently, especially before touching our face. Access to this facility by visitors has also been limited during the pandemic (only the most-necessary visitors are permitted), and the temperature of every visitor is taken. It’s obvious that these measures do work!

2. When will this pandemic be over?

Someone may understandably ask: “When will this pandemic finally be over?” Since many people in the U.S. decline to consistently practice the proper precautions, the pandemic is self-perpetuating: the “self” is us: WE OURSELVES willingly perpetuate it! The pandemic would probably be over or nearly over by now if ALL of us were strict in practicing these precautions.

For example, there is a contrast between Canada and the U.S. in this regard; Canada now tightly limits new Coronavirus cases by “respecting the virus”—i.e. by most people in Canada taking the proper precautions—while U.S. Coronavirus cases “soar.” Many young Americans act as if the virus doesn’t exist, but the virus keeps infecting people anyway: it keeps doing what it’s biologically programmed to do. (Canada crushing the curve as U.S. cases soar)

Other countries that have also “crushed the curve” (i.e. dramatically diminished new COVID cases and deaths) are, more-recently, China, New Zealand, Italy, Denmark, Vietnam, South Korea, Iceland, Japan, Turkey, and Germany—they’re all now doing better than the U.S., where a significant number of us hold to the perspective that, “Truth is whatever we prefer to believe.” (However, if we consumed a bottle of rat poison, it would harm us physically or kill us—depending on the potency and the quantity—REGARDLESS of what we believed about it! I’ll describe in Part 2 how philosophical relativism logically collapses upon itself; this does relate to the Moral Argument.) (How countries around the world have responded to Covid-19)  

Therefore, it’s beneficial to take the Coronavirus seriously and to respect its potential by taking the proper precautions. If we believe otherwise, we make ourselves more-vulnerable to the virus—we increase our chances of catching COVID.

However, since this awareness varies greatly in the U.S., my best guess is that the pandemic will be over when a vaccine is successfully tested and widely available. The most-hopeful estimates for this occurring are sometime in 2021, perhaps in the Spring or Summer. Therefore, we are wise if we maintain our practice of the proper precautions until then. Hang on! (Cf. Experts share a clearer timeline of when most Americans will get COVID-19 vaccine; UCSF Doctors Offer Insight into Spread of Coronavirus, Timeline on Vaccine; Johnson & Johnson hopes to begin late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial ahead of schedule in September)

3. The killing of George Floyd and the protests

Once again, world events have led me to write different posts than I had planned. These three posts originated as a response to the killing of George Floyd, and especially to the protests, which logically and powerfully fuel the Moral Argument for God’s existence. Why? Since these vigorous protests conveyed how obvious it is that this killing was morally wrong, this, in turn, pointed to the fact that the moral duty to never commit murder is objectively-true, real, and almost universally-perceived.

This killing falls under the common-law definition of murder in that it was an unlawful killing of a human by another human, with malice aforethought and without justification, obviously not in self-defense, nor in war. Cf. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder.

It’s likely that the police officer did not intend to kill Mr. Floyd—the officer obviously destroyed his career and incarcerated himself by killing him. Nevertheless, this killing could still bring about a conviction of murder, except probably in the second or third degree, not in the first degree, which specifically refers to a willful, premeditated intent and act to kill (i.e. a murder that’s planned in advance; cf. FindLaw: First Degree Murder Overview). Second degree murder refers to an intentional killing on the spur of the moment (not planned in advance) OR it may refer to the intent to cause bodily harm but not to kill, even though death resulted. (Cf. FindLaw: Second Degree Murder Overview) Third degree murder refers to an unintentional killing while someone is committing a dangerous act. (Cf. Third Degree Murder Overview)

4. How a moral value or duty can be “objective”

In this context, a statement is considered “objective” if it’s true about reality, independently of human opinion or preference. For example, “The Planet Earth orbits around the Sun” is an objective truth; human opinion doesn’t affect it. Theists (believers in the theistic God, which includes Christians) hold that moral values and duties are objective in this sense; they’re not merely subjective impressions or personal preferences (like chocolate over vanilla), nor are they societal preferences (like driving on the right or left side of the road). (The “theistic” God is the Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made.)

The vast majority of people (including theists, most agnostics, and most atheists) have not “voted” for morals to be objective; it’s that we perceive them to be objective in that they’re an integral part of reality. Most of us (with very few exceptions) perceive moral values and duties as an integral part of the way we interact with others; they are “built in” or intrinsic to our real experience, and THIS makes them “objective.” The rare person who is unable to feel guilt or remorse over a wrongdoing has always been seen as someone psychologically unable to sense what is normal.

Most believe that moral values like tolerance, fairness, and kindness are objectively true and valid; only a comparatively-few atheists and agnostics disagree; most atheists and agnostics, along with everyone else, agree.

These comparatively-few atheists and agnostics will say, “Moral values and duties are relative; they’re whatever you believe them to be.” But even then, they don’t live that way! If they’re wronged or cheated by someone, they’ll say, “That’s not right! That’s not fair! That’s not just! You shouldn’t have done that!” So, deep in their heart, they believe in objective moral values and duties, even though they profess not to. (Precisely this scenario occurred, as recounted by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, in their book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 7, under “How Do We Know the Moral Law Exists?”)

5. How can we know?

How can we know with reasonable certainty (i.e. to a high degree of probability) that a moral value or duty is objectively true?

Dr. Paul Copan, chair of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, believes in objective morals and described evidence for them as the “yuck factor.” He explained: “The ‘yuck factor’ is when we don’t even have to think through certain issues. We have a strong visceral revulsion against, say, rape or child abuse. We don’t hem and haw by saying, ‘Oh, well, maybe rape is right in some contexts.’ We know immediately, on a gut level, that rape is wrong.This is evidence that there are objective moral values that aren’t the product of sociobiological evolution. They are valid and binding for everyone, not just for some cultures.And we should take intuitions about these moral values—the ‘yuck factor’—seriously.” (Quoted from Dr. Copan by journalist Lee Strobel in The Case for the Real Jesus, Challenge #6, p. 238, Kindle Locations 4400-4404; I emphasized some sentences in bold.)

Here’s the BIGGEST “yuck factor” I know: we could NEVER, EVER truthfully say, “I like chocolate, you like vanilla, and Hitler liked killing millions of people. These are all just ordinary personal preferences.” No, they’re not! They’re not equivalent at all! Chocolate and vanilla are harmless preferences, while Hitler’s Holocaust was a despicable and terrible evil—objectively and truly! Rarely has an evil of this magnitude ever occurred!

From the utter REVULSION that we feel when we think of the Holocaust—in which Hitler’s Nazis deliberately killed six million Jewish people and millions of others—we should clearly see that the moral duty to never commit murder is objectively-true, valid, and real. (The Holocaust – Facts, Victims, and Survivors)

Dr. William Lane Craig, a well-known Christian scholar, explained that, “…to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them, so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.” (On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 6, Kindle Locations 2121-2124; I emphasized certain clauses in bold.)

In other words, the Holocaust was and would have been objectively, morally wrong even if the Nazis had won the war and persuaded everyone that the Holocaust was right. If something is objectively wrong, it’s wrong even if everyone in the world believes it’s right!

By contrast, a statement is “subjectively true” or “relative” if it’s seen as true by an individual or individuals; it’s essentially a personal preference, equivalent to saying, “Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.”

6. The input of philosophers Paul Copan and Kenneth Samples

Dr. Paul Copan stated in another source: “We just know the rightness of virtues (kindness, trustworthiness, unselfishness),and the burden of proof falls on those who deny this. When the moral skeptic says, “Prove that moral values exist,” he doesn’t need an argument. He really needs psychological and spiritual help. There are certain moral intuitions that are immediately apparent—unless there is some serious malfunction.” (Passionate Conviction: Contemporary Discourses on Christian Apologetics, edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, Chapter 6, p. 83, Kindle Locations 1444-1447)

Similarly, philosopher and theologian Kenneth Samples asserted that, “Moral values are a fundamental part of human life, every bit as real as the law of gravity. In their hearts, most people experience the pull of moral duty. This sense of moral oughtness is prescriptive in nature, transcending subjective feelings. Unlike secular attempts to account for morality, God’s existence and nature provide a logically sound source and foundation for objective moral values.” (25 Years, 25 Reasons to Believe)

7. The protests clarified this

Therefore, these vigorous protests over the killing of George Floyd supported the fact that the moral duty to never commit murder is objectively true; it’s not a relative or subjectively-perceived truth (like chocolate over vanilla), nor is it a mere societal convention (like driving on the right or left side of the road). Virtually everyone senses this duty as a moral obligation that’s objective and real—not a matter of personal preference, nor of societal preference.

The clear objectivity of this moral duty, and of course the objectivity of other moral values and duties, then makes it logically more-probable-than-not that the theistic God exists. This connection (between the protests over George Floyd’s murder, objective morality, and God’s existence) was so straightforward, I couldn’t miss it. It “jumped out” at me, at which time I planned on writing this post.

8. A video presenting the first formulation of the Moral Argument

The following animated video will explain these points visually and clearly. It’s from Reasonable Faith, the organization founded by Dr. William Lane Craig, a Christian scholar who holds two doctorates from prestigious universities, and who I’ve quoted frequently. The video describes what I call (in these posts, parts 1, 2, and 3) the first formulation (out of five) of the Moral Argument (that I will present). The second formulation is in section #11; the third formulation is in sections #15 and (formally presented in) 16. The other two formulations will be in Part 3, except that a “sneak preview” of the fifth formulation is in section #12.

Click on the center of the following YouTube block to begin playing the embedded video (a video embedded in this blogpost page):

If, for any reason, the above video does not appear in your browser, the link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU. Associated videos are at https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos.

The video presents the Moral Argument in three steps:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Note: here’s an important distinction: as the video indicated, the Moral Argument does NOT claim that a person must BELIEVE in God in order to live a good, moral life; agnostics and atheists are perfectly capable of living good, moral lives because God has revealed objective moral values and duties to EVERY human. Instead, the Moral Argument claims that God must actually EXIST in order for objective moral values and duties to exist. And since they do, God exists. (We’ll go into this distinction more fully in the next two sections, #9 and 10.)

Also, there’s much more information in Dr. Craig’s book, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 6; these three steps are found at Kindle Locations 2076-2078, but the entire sixth chapter discusses various reasons for believing the Moral Argument.

9. What the Moral Argument does NOT say

I brought up this point in the last section, just briefly. But, since this misunderstanding occurs frequently, a more-careful explanation is appropriate here. Even some scholars get confused about this, about what the Moral Argument does and does not claim. (Cf. Response to Pigliucci’s article on “Gods and Morality”)

I’ll reintroduce this distinction by mentioning that, sometimes, first impressions can be very mistaken impressions indeed. Often, when people are first exposed to the Moral Argument, they assume that it’s an argument that it’s not. They assume that the Argument is that, in order to live a good, moral life, one has to believe in God. This concept has nothing to do with the Argument! Nevertheless, this mistaken impression has made atheists very angry! They say, “This is outrageous! You can’t be ignorant enough to imply that all atheists are immoral, evil people simply because we don’t believe in God!”

They’re right—we DON’T intend to imply that, because we don’t believe it! We don’t believe it at all! No knowledgeable Christian that I’ve ever met makes or would ever make such a foolish argument (that one needs to believe in God in order to live a good, moral life).

On the contrary, we believe that most atheists live VERY good and moral lives because they, along with everybody else, have this perception or sense of objective moral values and duties—which actually comes FROM God, even though atheists don’t believe in Him. That is, they perceive objective moral values and duties because GOD ACTUALLY EXISTS and reveals these values and duties to everyone!

Dr. Paul Copan, from whom I quoted earlier, agrees. He wrote, “…all people … have been made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27). They’re constituted to function properly when they live according to God’s design. So people (including atheists) whose hearts have not been hardened or self-deceived will have the same sorts of moral instincts as Christians—that rape or adultery or torturing babies for fun is wrong, and kindness is good. … Even relativists who claim that someone’s values may be true for one person but not for others are likely the same people who say, ‘I have rights,’ or ‘You ought to be tolerant.’ But rights and tolerance do not make any sense if relativism is correct. Rather, they entail that objective moral values exist.” (From the lay-level anthology, Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science, edited by William A. Dembski and Michael R. Licona, Baker Books, 2010, Chapter 2, p. 21, Kindle Locations 272-281; I emphasized the last sentence in bold.)

10. What Dr. Craig says about what the Moral Argument does not say

Dr. William Lane Craig is the Christian scholar who I mentioned in sections 5 and 8; the animated video was from his organization, Reasonable Faith. He commented on what the Moral Argument doesn’t say in his book On Guard. In Chapter 6, he asks the question: “Can we be good without God?”

He wrote in response: “While it would be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God, that wasn’t the question. The question was: Can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we’re posing a question about the nature of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by just social conventions, like driving on the right-hand versus left-hand side of the road? Or are they merely expressions of personal preference, like having a taste for certain foods? Or are they somehow valid and binding, independent of our opinion, and if they are objective in this way, what is their foundation?” (On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 6, Kindle Locations 2044-2050; I emphasized the last sentence in bold.)

Dr. Craig went on to explain: “Many philosophers have thought that morality provides a good argument for God’s existence. One of the finest was William Sorley, who was a professor of moral philosophy at Cambridge University. In his Moral Values and the Idea of God (1918), Sorley argues that the best hope for a rational, unified view of reality is to postulate God as the ground of both the natural and the moral orders. Sorley maintains that there is an objective moral order, which is as real and independent of us as is the natural order of things.” (Ibid, Kindle Locations 2057-2061)

A little later in this chapter, Dr. Craig reviewed the above distinction—about belief in God versus God Himself as the Source of objective morality: “Again, the question is not: Can we recognize objective moral values and duties without believing in God? There’s no reason to think that you have to believe in God in order to recognize that, for example, we ought to love our children. … Rather the question is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist? The question is not about the necessity of belief in God for objective morality but about the necessity of the existence of God for objective morality. … To repeat: Belief in God is not necessary for objective morality; God is.” (Ibid, Kindle Locations 2178-2181, 2184-2186, and 2203-2205; I changed three of Dr. Craig’s sentences into bold.)

Therefore, the Moral Argument is NOT that a person must BELIEVE in God in order to live a good, moral life; instead, it’s that God must EXIST in order for there to BE objective morals, which come from His inner nature or character, which He then reveals to every human AS our sense of objective morals, which then also (as a bonus) confirms to us (by implication or inference) that God Himself (as the Source of objective morals) exists.

11. The second formulation

Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, in their lay-friendly book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, introduce the concept of objective morality as follows: first, they discuss a friend named Dave, who is a successful businessman who has a deep intuitive sense to help other people in need.

They wrote: “Why did he think he should ‘help people’? Where did he get such an idea? And why do you and I, deep down, agree with him? Stop and marinate on that point for a minute: Aren’t you just like Dave? Don’t you have this deep-seated sense of obligation that we all ought to ‘help people’? We all do. Why? And why do most human beings seem to have that same intuitive sense that they ought to do good and shun evil?”

Continuing: “Behind the answers to those questions is more evidence for the theistic God. This evidence is not scientific—that’s what we’ve seen in previous chapters—but moral in nature. Like the laws of logic and mathematics, this evidence is nonmaterial but it’s just as real. The reason we believe we ought to do good rather than evil—the reason we, like Dave, believe we should ‘help people’—is because there’s a Moral Law that has been written on our hearts. In other words, there is a ‘prescription’ to do good that has been given to all of humanity. … We refer to it as ‘The Moral Law.’ But whatever you call it, the fact that a moral standard has been prescribed on the minds of all human beings points to a Moral Law Prescriber. Every prescription has a prescriber. The Moral Law is no different. Someone must have given us these moral obligations.” (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 7, under “Is There a Standard?”)

Here’s their version—what I call (for my purpose in these three posts) the “second formulation” of the Moral Argument:

1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

They added: “If the first and second premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. Of course, every law has a law giver. There can be no legislation unless there’s a legislature. Moreover, if there are moral obligations, there must be someone to be obligated to.” (Ibid.)

12. Sneak preview of the fifth formulation

Here’s a “sneak preview” of the fifth formulation, which will become clearer as we examine more evidences and reasons in parts 2 and 3:

Premise 1: Our sense of moral values and duties is due to evolution (via natural selection) OR to subjective (philosophically-relativistic) impressions OR to societal conventions OR to atheistic moral Platonism OR to the theistic God. (Again, the “theistic” God is the Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made.)

Premise 2: It probably is not due to evolution (via natural selection); evolution is not an all-encompassing explanation (it doesn’t explain every feature of our sense of moral values and duties) and therefore, it’s probably not THE all-encompassing explanation OF objective morality; a better explanation is available and preferable. (See much-more in the next four sections, #13 through 16.)

Premise 3: It probably is not due to subjective (philosophically-relativistic) impressions; the strength and vigor of these moral values and duties (as exhibited in the protests over George Floyd) points to a stronger factor than mere subjective impressions (like chocolate ice cream as a preference over vanilla).

Premise 4: It probably is not due to societal conventions; the strength and vigor of these moral values and duties (as exhibited in the protests) points to a stronger factor than mere societal conventions (like a preference to drive on the right or left side of the road).

Premise 5: It probably is not due to atheistic moral Platonism; moral values as self-existent ideas or abstractions probably do not occur in reality, because there’s no ontological basis for their supposed self-existence! (Some atheists believe that moral values, like love, mercy, and justice, exist out there as “ideas” without an ontological foundation or basis for existing, but it makes much-more sense to believe that moral values are found and anchored in God’s moral nature. Persons have ideas and moral values; “things” do not.)

Conclusion: Therefore, our sense of moral values and duties is probably grounded in and due to the moral nature of the theistic God.

13. Objection #1: the evolutionary explanation of objective morals

Many atheists believe in objective morals, apparently without considering why these morals exist; these atheists generally live good, moral lives. A comparatively-few atheists are logically consistent with their atheism—they deny the existence of objective morals, even though their denial makes them affirm such statements as, “Torturing a baby for fun is not morally wrong because there are no objective morals.” Yuck! But they are consistent with their atheism: if God doesn’t exist, objective moral values and duties don’t exist; therefore, anything is logically permissible.

However, there are also some atheists who believe that, while God (supposedly) doesn’t exist, objective moral values and duties do exist because they were (supposedly) developed over time by natural selection as instinctive feelings. In other words, in their minds, evolution replaces God.

They will say, “Morality is objective only in the sense that evolution did it. What happened was that natural selection gave us instincts to be kind and considerate toward our fellow humans in order to better preserve and perpetuate our species. Chimpanzees and baboons exhibit the same kind of altruistic behavior.”

14. The problem with the evolutionary explanation

When I was an atheist, I would have agreed with the above explanation, and it does sound impressive—until one analyzes it in detail. When a logical thinker does so, he or she realizes that the chief goal pursued by the Darwinian mechanism (natural selection) that supposedly gives us our sense of objective morality—that we should “be kind and considerate toward our fellow humans”—is that in so doing, we will “better preserve and perpetuate our species.”

However, in theory at least, it’s arguable that humans could “better preserve and perpetuate our species” by being mean, cruel, violent and controlling! People could (hypothetically) become part of a gang or mob (or even the government of a country) that forces women to “perpetuate our species” by arranged marriages and/or forced rapes. Yuck! But, strictly speaking, “perpetuating our species” need not be done in a nice and kind way. (As a Christian, I of course strongly reject this cruel methodology. God tells us to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Cf. Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31)

Nevertheless, this kind of cruelty occurs in the animal kingdom all the time! As British poet Alfred Tennyson noted, nature is “red in tooth and claw.” All types of cruelty and violence occur in the animal kingdom.

15. The precise problem

Therefore, if evolution produced our sense of objective morality, we would EXPECT our moral sense to INCLUDE (at times) an urge or impulse to be mean, cruel, violent and controlling (as in the animal kingdom)—but our moral sense doesn’t do this! Instead, our passions prompt us (at times) to be unkind or even cruel, but our moral sense does not. When we’re mean or cruel (hopefully unintentionally), virtually every one of us, afterwards, feels guilty; i.e. that we’ve violated our sense of objective morals (except for those with hardened hearts, with a dysfunction in the moral sense).

A problem, then, arises for the evolutionary explanation, because we have a deep sense of objective morality that tells us to be consistently nice, kind, considerate, fair, just, and altruistic towards others. Our moral sense doesn’t tell us to be mean, cruel, violent and controlling; to do so, we’d have to DISREGARD or SUPPRESS our moral sense, which tells us to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31) and to “treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” (Luke 6:31, NASB) For many of us, our moral sense also reflects the question asked rhetorically in Micah 6:8: “…what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (ESV)

Here’s some more-precise reasoning: since the above evolutionary explanation doesn’t take into account EVERY aspect of our sense of objective morality (it doesn’t explain every feature; i.e. that we should be consistently kind, considerate, fair, just, and altruistic—and NEVER mean, cruel, violent, or controlling), it therefore can’t be THE all-encompassing explanation OF objective morality. And thus, something else is likely the all-encompassing explanation or, at least, a better explanation, probably indicating the actual Source of objective morals.

That “something else” starts with the fact that we sense an objective moral law that’s intelligible and rational. Now, since virtually-every human on Earth senses an objective law, we can reasonably conclude that the moral law is objective, more-probably than not (it’s unlikely that virtually-every human is deceived about this). Therefore,since it’s probably objective, we can know by its intelligibility and rationality that it (the moral law) was probably produced by an intelligent, rational, and therefore SENTIENT being (one possessing conscious awareness), who obviously has a moral nature.

And since this sentient being has apparently put this moral law into the minds and hearts of virtually-every human on Earth, this probably-existent being has great power and is virtually omnipresent (i.e. everywhere present). From this we see that He therefore has the essential characteristics of the theistic God!

Now, backing up, since I recognize that it’s probable, from our awareness, that the moral law is objective, this argument—which is, in rough form, the third formulation—again logically concludes that the theistic God probably exists. We don’t know that He exists with certainty (although this argument combined with other arguments cumulatively demonstrate that He exists to a high degree of probability). Still, as it pertains to this argument, His existence is the only reasonable and all-encompassing explanation for our sense of objective moral values and duties.

16. The third formulation formally presented

From this reasoning, we thus have the third formulation:

1. Virtually-every human senses the existence of an objective moral law.

2. Since virtually-every human senses it, this moral law is probably objective in nature; it’s probably valid and real, apart from human opinion, more-probably than not. (It’s unlikely that virtually-every human is deceived about this.)

3. This moral law is also (obviously) intelligible and rational.

4. Since the moral law is probably objective, and since the moral law is definitely intelligible and rational, it probably has been produced by an intelligent, rational, and therefore SENTIENT being, who also has a moral nature.

5. Since this probably-existent, sentient, intelligent, rational, and moral being has apparently put this moral law into the minds and hearts of virtually-every human on Earth, this probably-existent being has great power and is virtually omnipresent (i.e. everywhere present).

6. Since this probably-existent, sentient, intelligent, rational, and moral being has great power and is virtually omnipresent, He therefore has the essential characteristics of the theistic God.

7. Since this probably-existent, sentient, intelligent, rational, moral, powerful, and virtually-omnipresent being has the essential characteristics of the theistic God; therefore, this Being is the theistic God, who probably exists.

17. Following my blog and the featured image

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, within minutes after a new post is online.

The photo or featured image

The following photo of an open Bible (which is also the featured image of this post) is provided because the basic moral values found in the Bible that pertain to human interactions—values that most people believe to be objectively-true (particularly in the Ten Commandments and in the Sermon on the Mount)—mirror the SAME moral values found in the human heart. (Cf. Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21; Matthew 5:1-7:27)

18. Resources

This Moral Argument is only one of over thirty logical arguments (inferences to the best explanation), based on objective evidence, that cumulatively establish that (for some arguments) the theistic God or (for other arguments) the biblical God exists, more-probably than not, OR (with some arguments) to a higher degree of probability.

Other evidences and reasons (logical arguments) for God may be found in the following resources that I recommend. I describe as “intermediate level” those resources that are scholarly, yet are understandable to the layperson, perhaps with the use of a dictionary or thesaurus.

As I stated in my third and fourth posts, there are abundant evidences for the New Testament’s historical reliability, some of which we covered in the second and third posts, and more of which we shall examine in future posts. I recommend the scholarly or intermediate-level book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig Blomberg; B&H Academic, 2016. I also recommend the lay-friendly book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapters 9-14. In addition, for the historicity of Jesus, I recommend the intermediate-level book, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Dr. Gary Habermas, College Press Publishing, 1996. Cf. Are the Gospel narratives legendary or historically reliable?; Are there historical documentations of Jesus outside the Bible?

I recommend the following websites:

• Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig: evidence from philosophy, science, history, & theology
• The other eleven animated videos (and many other short videos) from Reasonable Faith
• Longer videos by Dr. Craig
• Ravi Zacharias and his team: Q&A at universities
• Ravi Zacharias and his team: talks at universities
• Ravi Zacharias’ YouTube Channel
• Reasons To Believe: evidence from science
• Reasons To Believe: blogs by scientists/scholars
• Reflections Blog by philosopher & theologian Kenneth Samples
• Reasons To Believe’s YouTube Channel

I recommend the following books:

• The lay-friendly book, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William Lane Craig, published by David C. Cook, 2010. (Cf. On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics?)
• The lay-friendly book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004.
• The intermediate-level book, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by Dr. William Lane Craig, Crossway Books, 2008.   

• The lay-friendly book (essentially an anthology in that Mr. Strobel interviews a different scientist or scholar in each chapter and quotes him word-for-word), The Case for the Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points toward God by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, 2004.
• The lay-friendly book (essentially an anthology again), The Case for Christ: Solving the Biggest Mystery of All Time by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, 2017.
• The lay-friendly book (essentially an anthology again), The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, 2007.

• The lay-level anthology, Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics, edited by Raul Copan and William Lane Craig, B&H Publishing Group, 2012; this anthology has a dynamite chapter (#11) by Dr. Mark Foreman, debunking the Jesus-myth theory; he carefully explains all of their many logical fallacies.
• The lay-level anthology, Passionate Conviction: Contemporary Discourses on Christian Apologetics, edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, B&H Publishing Group, 2007.
• The lay-level anthology, Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science, edited by William A. Dembski and Michael R. Licona, Baker Books, 2010.
• The lay-level anthology, Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists, edited by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, Kregel Publications, 2011.

• The intermediate-level book, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, IVP Academic, 2014.
• The intermediate-level book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, B&H Academic, 2016.
• The intermediate-level book, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Dr. Gary Habermas, College Press Publishing, 1996. 
• The intermediate-level book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Drs. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, Kregel Publications, 2004.

• The intermediate-level book, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Kregel Publications, 2006.
• The intermediate-level book, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Dr. Craig A. Evans, IVP Books, 2006.
• The intermediate-level anthology, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Zondervan, 2010.

• The intermediate-level book, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God by Dr. Hugh Ross, RTB Press, 2018.
• The intermediate-level book, Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator by Dr. Fazale Rana, Baker Books, 2011.
• The intermediate-level book, The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Dr. Fazale Rana, Baker Books, 2008.  
• The intermediate-level book, Escaping the Beginning? Confronting Challenges to the Universe’s Origin by Dr. Jeff Zweerink, RTB Press, 2019.
• The intermediate-level book, Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Dr. Fazale Rana with Dr. Hugh Ross, RTB Press, 2015.
• The intermediate-level anthology, Science and Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute Press, 2012.

19. Good and relevant videos

• On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics?
• The short, animated video on the Moral Argument, from Reasonable Faith
• Animated video: Moral Realism: Defined by Inspiring Philosophy (“Moral realism” here is the belief that “…moral judgments can be true or false … and that what makes them true is independent from people’s … beliefs, judgments or desires.” —Andrew Fisher; the video also makes the statements that, “Beyond our cognition there are actual moral facts we are discovering and learning about. We can tap into this through a cognitive sense. We can use these moral facts to better operate in reality.” Thus, “moral realism” is essentially the belief in objective moral values and duties.)
• Animated video: Moral Realism: Defended by Inspiring Philosophy
• Animated video: The Moral Argument by Inspiring Philosophy
• Animated video: A Critique of Natural Moral Realism by Inspiring Philosophy
• Animated video: A Critique of Moral Relativism by Inspiring Philosophy
• On Guard Conference: Paul Copan – Can We Be Good without God?
• Response to Pigliucci’s article on “Gods and Morality” by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Dr. William Lane Craig: the Moral Argument, Part 1
• Dr. William Lane Craig: the Moral Argument, Part 2
• Dr. William Lane Craig: the Moral Argument, Part 3
• Dr. William Lane Craig: the Moral Argument, Part 4

The following videos help support one’s emotions in this pandemic, help one’s understanding of biblical theism, and help one’s spiritual growth:

• Is There Meaning to Life? (Animated video)
• Why you should change your mind about Jesus by Dr. William Lane Craig
• What difference does it make if God exists? By Dr. William Lane Craig
• Are There Objective Truths about God? Part 1 by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Are There Objective Truths about God? Part 2 by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Why is the Christian Faith reasonable? By Dr. William Lane Craig
• Arguments for God (EPS Apologetics Conference) by Dr. William Lane Craig
• The Case for Christian Theism by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Bringing Hope to the COVID-19 Days Ahead by Dr. Anjeanette Roberts
• Come Alive Part A by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• Come Alive Part B by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• The Quarantined Life Part A by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• The Quarantined Life Part B by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• How to live and die well by Dr. Skip Heitzig

This is an outstanding testimony from a former atheist; this is one of the best testimonies I’ve ever heard!

I’ve become extremely impressed with the testimonies at https://imetmessiah.com/

• Andrew Klavan’s excellent Jewish testimony; he never felt Jewish UNTIL he met Jesus!
• Jewish Dr. Stuart Dauermann found Jesus to be the door to real Jewish life!
• Jewish Dr. Michael Brown’s powerful testimony

Many more Jewish testimonies are at https://imetmessiah.com/ or at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ARO7ZaeT1E&list=PLChUvnbgjRrwJ3sH0Gp06nlSGcWeM0Oj7&index=2&t=0s