The Moral Argument for God

I do think I ought to go further myself with this one. If God doesn't define what is moral, who/what does? The individual? Society? Private corporations? Non-theistic philosophers? The state/government?

If we accept the individual being the one who defines morality, then we have an incoherent mess, as everyone's idea of morality will be different. For one, murder will be the worst evil; for another, it will not be evil at all; likewise with theft and assault.

If we accept society as the defining factor, then we essentially have the issue of cultural relativism; what is good in one society is evil or at best strange in another. Like with the individual, there is no objective standard to cling to; it is whatever a particular society/nation/ethnicity says it is.

Private corporations would also be bad as arbiters of morality. Potentially, they could decide morality with price jumps (regarding whatever item they sell) for those with the "wrong" beliefs while keeping the asking price for those of the "right" beliefs. Likely such a situation would lead to one where greed is rewarded and generosity would be punished, or at least seen as non-sensical or wasteful.

Philosophers are similar to the first scenario, with the difference of them having followers among society rather than being lone arbiters, as individuals would be. Perhaps a more elegant situation than the first, but ultimately we would have people endorsing the moral beliefs of one philosopher or another. And philosophers can (and often do) have flaws in their reasoning, not necessarily fatal ones (as in, someone may be able to "fix" them by modifying or adding ideas), but enough to ensure than such a society would always be in conflict about morality without solving the problem. And again, there would be no punishment for murder and other things we rightly consider to be wrong, as someone could get out of it by saying they followed such and such a philosopher.

And we have seen in the 20th century what happens when the STATE is the lone arbiter of right and wrong; Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Nationalist Spain, Military-ruled Japan, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Vietnam after the War, North Korea, and more. Disarmament of the population (to prevent resistance to tyranny), prison systems, re-education camps, summary murders (I will not give them validity with the word "executions"), and worship of the state and/or it's leaders, all whilst laying upon the people themselves labor after ceaseless labor. When the state is the decider of moral objectivity, the results are that those in the "wrong" are harassed, bullied, arrested, and the general population is taught to hate them. I do not claim that religious societies are guiltless in this regard; the cruelty of the Levantine and Baltic Crusades, as well as the Spanish Reconquista and conquest of the New World all provide examples of how religious zealotry, when allowed to foster into violence, can do horrific harm, not to mention dishonoring the God they claim to serve. I do, however, believe that these things are against, not for, what the faith says, and that those who mistreat others in the name of God will reap a just judgment if they don't repent from the heart. In any case, this whole spiel is about how non-theistic entities would try to decide morality in the absence of God's moral instruction.

As such, I do not believe that human beings, or the entities they can think up, can at all decide good and evil. From whence can an atheist get the idea that murder is evil if there is no God governing his world? From him/herself, and one could always dispute the moral views of another without arriving at a distinct foundation without an outside force, such as the state, enforcing a moral viewpoint. I would like to add that even atheists, consciously or not, within reality will often look to Judeo-Christian commands of morality, such as the Ten Commandments, for moral standards of right and wrong.

We cannot be good without Someone to define the moral rules within the universe. We may do things that others may (or may not) call good, such as the man in the video saving the cat from the tree, but another could always argue that their actions are wrong; take the moral ideas of Ayn Rand, for example, whose philosophy was that selfishness ought to be the highest goal of human beings, with altruism being morally corrupt. From such a standpoint, the man would be in the wrong for saving the cat since that is not in his selfish interest (and would be a waste of time he could be using to do something more practical, such as working to get more money).

In conclusion, standards of morality cannot come from within humanity, but from another Source. A Higher Source. One that millions have called God.

Thank you, whether or not you agree, for taking the time to read this. May the Lord Jesus Christ save you, and then guide, protect, and watch over you.