Some things are objectively wrong. Torturing children for fun. Rape. Genocide. These aren't just culturally disapproved; they're genuinely evil regardless of anyone's opinions.
But if God doesn't exist, what makes them objectively wrong? Why isn't morality just human preference or social convention? The moral argument contends that objective moral values require God as their foundation.
The argument is straightforward:
- If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist
- Objective moral values do exist
- Therefore, God exists
Premise 1: No God, No Objective Morality
Without God, what grounds morality? Several options are proposed:
Evolution: Morality evolved because cooperative behaviors aided survival. But this explains why we believe certain things are right/wrong, not why they actually are. Evolution could program us to believe rape is wrong while rape itself isn't objectively wrong—just maladaptive.
Moreover, evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains what happened, not what should happen. "Humans evolved to believe X" doesn't entail "X is true." Our moral beliefs could be useful fictions without objective basis.
Social contract: Morality is agreement among people for mutual benefit. But this makes morality conventional, not objective. If society agreed rape was acceptable, it would be morally permissible. But we recognize rape is wrong regardless of social agreement.
Reason: We can deduce moral truths through reason alone. But reason can identify logical consistency; it can't create moral obligations from nothing. Why is logical consistency morally binding? This smuggles in moral assumptions reason alone can't establish.
Naturalism: Moral facts are natural facts, like physical laws. But natural facts describe how things are, not how they ought to be. You can't derive ought from is without smuggling in moral premises. And if moral facts are just natural facts, why call them "moral"? They're just descriptions of reality without prescriptive force.
None of these successfully ground objective morality. At best, they explain why we hold moral beliefs. They don't establish that those beliefs correspond to objective moral reality.
Premise 2: Objective Moral Values Exist
Most people recognize some things are objectively wrong. Even moral relativists usually exempt certain actions—genocide, child torture—from relativism. These are really, truly, objectively wrong.
Our moral experience testifies to this. When we say "the Holocaust was wrong," we don't mean "I personally dislike the Holocaust" or "my culture disapproves." We mean the Holocaust violated objective moral standards that exist independent of anyone's opinions.
Moral reformers presuppose this. When abolitionists said slavery was wrong, they weren't just expressing personal preference. They were claiming slavery violated objective moral standards, even though their society accepted it. If morality were merely social convention, moral reform would be incoherent.
Our moral outrage presupposes this. When we're genuinely outraged by injustice, we're not just expressing displeasure. We're recognizing violation of moral standards that truly exist.
Denying objective morality has absurd consequences. It means the Holocaust wasn't really wrong—just unpopular. Rape isn't truly evil—just culturally disapproved in most places. Torturing children for fun isn't objectively bad—just something we happen to dislike.
Most people recognize these conclusions are false. Therefore, objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: God Exists
If objective moral values exist and they require God as foundation, then God exists. This doesn't prove Christianity specifically, but it establishes theism over atheism.
How does God ground morality? His nature provides the standard. God is perfectly good, loving, just. These aren't arbitrary properties; they're essential to His nature. Moral values reflect God's character.
Moral duties flow from God's commands. We ought to act in ways that align with God's nature and will. Moral obligations have force because they're grounded in the authoritative will of the Creator.
This makes morality both objective (independent of human opinion) and prescriptive (genuinely binding). God's nature provides the standard; God's will provides the obligation.
Objections
"This is just divine command theory—God could command rape and it would be good." No, because moral values are grounded in God's unchanging nature, not arbitrary divine commands. God couldn't command rape because it contradicts His nature. His commands express His nature; they don't create morality arbitrarily.
"The Euthyphro dilemma: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good?" This is false dilemma. Morality isn't independent of God (second horn) nor arbitrary divine fiat (first horn). It's grounded in God's necessary nature. God commands what's good because His nature is good, and His commands express His nature.
"I can be moral without believing in God." Of course. The argument isn't that atheists can't be moral, but that they can't ground morality. Atheists can recognize objective moral values (most do). They just can't explain them on atheistic terms. They're borrowing moral capital from theistic worldview.
"Evolution can explain morality." Evolution explains our moral beliefs, not moral truth. It's confusing ontology (what morality is) with epistemology (how we know morality). Even if evolution explains why we believe certain things are wrong, it doesn't explain why they actually are wrong.
Practical Implications
The moral argument matters practically. If there's no objective morality, why condemn injustice? Why pursue justice? Why hold anyone morally accountable?
Atheism that takes its implications seriously tends toward nihilism. If morality is just preference or convention, there's no ultimate meaning or purpose. Some atheists embrace this, but most live as if objective values exist—they just can't justify them philosophically.
Christianity provides the foundation atheism lacks. Moral values are objective because they're grounded in God's nature. Moral duties are binding because they flow from God's will. Moral accountability is real because God will judge.
This gives coherent framework for moral experience. We're not deluded when we recognize genuine evil. We're perceiving reality. Moral intuitions aren't evolutionary accidents; they're recognition of God-grounded moral truth.
As autistic person who values logical coherence, I find the moral argument compelling. It's not emotional appeal or wishful thinking. It's careful reasoning: objective morality exists (empirically obvious), objective morality requires foundation (philosophically necessary), God provides that foundation (theologically coherent).
The alternatives—evolution, social contract, reason alone—fail to ground objective morality. They explain our beliefs about morality without establishing that those beliefs are true.
Only theism successfully grounds objective moral values. And since objective moral values clearly exist (torturing children is really wrong, not just unpopular), theism is true.
This doesn't prove Christianity specifically. But combined with cosmological argument, fine-tuning, argument from consciousness, and historical evidence for Christ's resurrection, it contributes to cumulative case for Christian theism.
When I recognize that genocide is objectively wrong, I'm not just expressing preference. I'm perceiving moral reality. And that reality points beyond nature to its transcendent Source—the God whose nature is goodness itself, whose will is the standard for right action, whose existence makes moral truth possible.
That's not wishful thinking. That's following moral experience to its logical foundation.