Does God Exist? (Part 2: The Moral Argument)

Does God Exist? Part 2 — The Moral Argument

If objective moral values and duties really exist, where did they come from? Is morality simply a matter of personal opinion, cultural preference, or evolutionary instinct—or does it point beyond ourselves to God?

In Part 2 of our series on God's existence, we examine one of the most compelling arguments for theism: the Moral Argument. We explore why every moral law requires a moral lawgiver, why objective morality is something we all live as though it exists, and why our moral experience makes far more sense in a world created by God than in a purely material universe.

Along the way, we'll consider everyday evidence for objective morality, discuss why our conscience matters, and explain why concepts like justice, human rights, and moral obligation cannot exist without an objective standard. We also respond to some of the most common objections, including:

• Can atheists be moral?
• Is morality arbitrary because God commands it?
• Do moral values "just exist"?
• Is human flourishing enough to explain morality?

This episode continues our "12 Points That Show Christianity Is True" series, focusing on the second line of evidence that supports the existence of God: the Moral Argument.

Recommended Reading:

• I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist — Chapter 7
• On Guard by William Lane Craig — "Can We Be Good Without God?"

Transcript

Copy

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to the Actual Answers Podcast. I'm your host, Matt Hazelwood, and here we tackle the questions that matter most. From the challenges of atheism and competing worldviews to the theological questions that Christians ask every day. Our goal is simple: to seek truth, provide clear biblical answers, and equip believers to think carefully, speak faithfully, and defend the Christian faith with confidence. So whether you're a skeptic looking for answers, a believer seeking understanding, or a Christian wanting to sharpen your ability to engage the culture, this podcast is for you. Because truth matters, questions matter, and Christianity has actual answers. Welcome to the Actual Answers Podcast. Let's get to the episode. Hey, welcome to today's episode. I am Matt Hazewood. This is the Actual Answers Podcast, and we are continuing our series of Christian apologetics utilizing Norman Geisler's 12 points that show that Christianity is true. And so we have gone through points one through three so far. Truth about reality is knowable. The opposite of true is false. And last week we began the big one of a theistic God exists, which is point three, and a lot hinged on that point. But up to this point, what we have done is we have defeated several worldviews, and our list just keeps growing. We line them up, we knock them down. We started off with scientism, denialism, agnosticism, skepticism, pluralism, postmodernism, relativism, perspectivism, religious pluralism, multiculturalism. And last time we took out atheism, naturalism, and materialism. And today we're going to just continue, continue to add nails to that coffin. And so last time we actually began the conversation of proving God's existence, utilizing our first line of evidence of the Kalam cosmological argument, which said that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The first premise was analytically true because the law of causality, that's what it means to be in effect. It's undeniable. We used several scientific evidences and philosophical evidences to show that the universe began to exist. Therefore, we rightly concluded that the universe has a cause, and we did an analysis of what that cause must look like from what we know from the evidence. And we concluded that the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal, and a supernatural creator. And that, of course, is what is meant by God, the theistic view of God or the Bible's view of God. And we really looked at the natural law last week. We looked out there to see what creation tells us about what caused it to be the natural law. But today we're going to take a different approach. We're going to look at the moral law. We're going to look inwards, if you would. And it's going to be the moral law that we examine today. Now, there's there's all kinds of versions of the moral argument. There, there's some that Kant has, there's some that William Lane Craig has, C. S. Lewis, Norman Geisler. There's various renditions of this argument, but I'm going to use kind of a combination between Norman Geisler's and C.S. Lewis' version of the moral argument for God's existence. And so we're going to take each one of these. And the first premise of the moral argument for the existence of God is that every moral law has a moral lawgiver. There is an objective moral law, premise two. Therefore, there must be an objective moral lawgiver. And so we're going to use this logical syllogism to kind of work through this to be the outline of what we will look at today. And just like any logical syllogism, just like any argument whatsoever, it has to be the premises have to be true, the terms have to be clear, and the logic has to be valid. There can be no logical fallacies. The premises must be true, and the terms must be clear rather than ambiguous. So if we want to avoid, or if somebody wants to avoid the objective moral lawgiver conclusion, they would have to show that these are ambiguous terms, or that the propositions are not true, or that there is a logical fallacy that is evidence within the argument of every moral law has a moral lawgiver. There is an objective moral law, therefore, there must be an objective moral lawgiver. So let's look at premise one. Every moral law has a moral lawgiver. So the truth of this premise is self-evident because it is true by definition. If you've if you've been listening or joining the classes of late, you know that one of my favorite terms is analytical truth, which means that something is true by definition. And the truth of this premise, for premise one, is self-evident because it is true by definition. And analytical truths are things such as there is no such thing as a married bachelor. That would be analytically false because bachelors by definition are unmarried. There's no such thing as a four-sided triangle because triangles by definition are three-sided. There are no such thing as even odd numbers or odd even numbers. There's no such thing as a one-sided stick. These are analytical truths because they are true by definition, and no amount of evidence could ever persuade the truth otherwise, because it must be that way. There's no way to ever show that a bachelor can be married and a bachelor at the same time and in the same sense. It's not even possible. So why do we say that this uh moral law, this premise one, is self-evidently true because it is true by definition. Well, if we look at the definition of Mary Webster of what the definition of law is, it is a binding custom or practice of a community, a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. The law is a prescription that is formally recognized as binding and for it, it's something that is prescribed. But if you posit a prescription, you by definition posit a what? Prescriber. Every prescription needs a prescriber because that is analytically true. That's what it means to be a prescription, is to be a prescriber. If it's not a prescription, then you you don't have to posit a prescriber. But if it is a prescription, you must posit a prescriber, just like every painting needs a painter, every house, every building needs a builder. That's what Hebrews 3:4 says, where every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Every effect needs a cause, every prescription needs a prescriber. That is analytically true. But also, this is true by the experience of everyone that is living. The truth of this premise is proved by everyday experience. All you would have to do to show me otherwise, or to convince me otherwise, is give me any example, a single moral law that came to be without a moral law giver. And if you can produce one, well, then we can have a conversation about that. But perhaps you would say, well, the moral law in general is that law that we have without a uh law uh giver. But that's simply just begging the question at that point. That's exact that's exactly what's in view here. You can't use that one, that would be logically fallacious in circular reasoning. So the truth of premise one is self-evident because it is true by definition, and every prescription needs a prescriber because that's what it means to have a moral law. It is a prescription, and every prescription needs a prescriber, and it's proved by everyday experience. So premise one succeeds. Every moral law has a moral law giver. And premise two, this is where really the argument focuses on most of the time, is that there is an objective moral law. So I've got seven points I want to discuss regarding this objective moral law. That's what we would need to show in order for this to succeed. So there is one point that I want to bring up is that we could not know what injustice looks like if there were not an objective standard. How would we know wrong if there was not right? If there wasn't a right standard, how could we know injustice a violation of that right standard? C.S. Lewis in mere Christianity 100% has the best analysis or the best uh presentation of the moral argument in mere Christianity. And he says, just how I how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? This is the argument that that weighed on him the most. He thinking these things as an atheist, right? We could not know what injustice looks like if there was not an objective standard to observe it by. We only know crooked lines because we know what straight lines are. So that's number one. Number two is that moral comparisons demand an objective moral law, such as Mother Teresa's versus Hitler, right? Mother Teresa fed the hungry and Hitler starved the hungry. Mother Teresa healed the sick and Hitler murdered the innocent. Mother Teresa seemed to love all, and Hitler seemed to hate almost all. Right? So we, how could we really measure that one of them is better than another if there is not something apart from them to judge them by, in order to say, Mother Teresa, although not perfect, is closer to the ideal standard, which we would call the moral law, than Hitler was. So C.S. Lewis continues in Mere Christianity when he says that the moment that you say one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are in fact measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are in fact comparing them both with some real morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real right than others. Or put it this way: if your moral ideas can be truer and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something, some real morality, moral law, for them to be true about. See, the moral comparisons show us that the moral law exists. Because when we compare them to each other, we are saying that this person is nearer to that standard than this person. Again, and that thing that we're comparing both of these characters to is something different than the thing that they are. We are comparing them to that standard, that moral law. So we could not know what injustice looks like if there was not an objective standard, and moral comparisons demand an objective moral law. Number three is our reactions help us to discover the moral law, right? We don't create this, but we do discover it. And if you don't believe it, just look at yourself. There's a famous story of a professor who commissions his students to write a paper in the philosophy class, and the student decides to write a paper on that there is no objective moral law. Of course, this is a well-researched paper. His handwriting is wonderful, everything is exactly like it should be. It's very articulate, it's very intelligent. And the student submits the paper, and the professor writes a big F on the paper without even reading it. And of course, the student says, What in the world is going on? Why would you do something like this? He says, I don't like blue ink. And the student is absolutely outraged that the professor would do such a thing. Now, why is he outraged? Well, because the professor violated the moral law, and he saw that clearly. So while the student had all of these wonderful arguments and ideas and citations and sources and thoughts regarding that there is no objective moral law, as soon as the professor transgressed that moral law against him, he all of a sudden changed his view in real life. What he said with his mouth did not match what reality had demonstrated to him. So his actions, the professor's actions, spoke louder than the student's word. As the as Ralph Waldo-Emerson rightly says, your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say. You see, any denial of the moral law is forced and temporary. Because all you have to do is force the situation and make it personal for them, and then they will abandon that immediately with their own reaction. So there's a famous video of R.C. Sproul on a panel, and they said, What would you do to somebody who says that there is no absolute right and wrong, no moral law? And he succinctly said, steal his wallet. And of course, he will instantly see that there is a moral law and that this sorry person transgressed that moral law. Any denial of the moral law is forced and temporary. Our reactions help us discover this moral law. Well, fourthly, if there is no moral law, then we would not make excuses for violating this moral law that supposedly doesn't exist. Such as when you are late to a meeting, you apologize for being late. Why? Because the moral law says it is it is good that we are to be timely because it's also good to be honest, right? I said that I was going to be at this meeting at nine o'clock and I show up at 9.15. Well, I've I violated something that is not me and something that is not you, that we both know I should have done that. So I apologize for that. I'm sorry for being late because the standard is to be on time, and because the standard is to be honest. And I said I would be here at this time, but I'm not at this time. So I apologize for not upholding that standard that I should have held. So if there was no moral law, then we would not make excuses for violating this moral law that supposedly doesn't exist. Number five is that the moral law must be absolute and not relative. Because just as we know that things are moving and going a certain direction, there must be something stationary in order to make that judgment. So you can imagine yourself in the car when you're driving down the highway and you see things that are stationary, like trees and mountains and things of that nature, because those things are still, we know that we are moving. We are progressing this way or that way. Whereas if you notice, sometimes you're on the water, and if if something is moving with you at the same speed and the same time that you're going, you don't really notice the movements. Well, the same thing with the moral law. Because we have moved towards it or away from it, we know that that thing is stationary in and of itself. It is absolute, not relative, because we can get closer to it or further away. Whereas if it's moving with or without without us or with us, then we couldn't be able to sense it. So the moral law must be absolute, not relative. Number six is that absolute morality is found across cultures. See, the moral law exists beyond language, beyond culture, beyond boundaries, beyond ethnic groups. And of course, people are gonna they're gonna provide all kinds of examples of like, no, they believe this over here, and we believe this over here, and they believe something totally different over there. And all it does, all we need to do is just take a few minutes and realize what's actually going on underneath. So you can think about the example of people in India, they don't eat cows, they think that is a moral atrocity. And we in America say that's no big deal to eat cows. So don't you see? Moral laws, the morality of cultures is different. So therefore, morality is not absolute. It does not transcend cultures whatsoever because they don't believe in eating cows, and we do believe in eating cows. So therefore, morals are not absolute. But just think about it for a second. Their beliefs about what is happening is different than ours in a very fundamental sense. See, in India, they believe in reincarnation. They believe that when you die and you come back, depending on how you live, you might come back as a cow, which would be a good thing. You've had a good life, or you might come back as a bug if you live a bad life. And so what they think about that cow is that that cow could be grandma. We don't think that that cow is grandma, but we both agree that it is bad to eat grandma. We just don't think that that cow is grandma. So, really, this actually shows that morality is absolutely absolute, not relative, and that it is it is found across cultures no matter what. They think that eating grandma is bad, we think that eating grandma is bad. We just think that's not grandma. Number seven is that sometimes we choose duty over instinct, which indicates an absolute standard. Because some will say, well, this is just to uh provide procreation across the human race, that we have this sense of morality, if you would. It's not actual morality, it's just a sense because that's what perpetuates our genes. So we act, quote unquote, moral so that way the survival of the human species continues to flourish and we pass on our genes. There's not really an objective moral law. But then you would have a hard time explaining duty, right? You can you can imagine somebody, this certainly happens in war and disasters when they strike, uh, somebody is drowning, or some person is getting robbed or a burning building. You have something that happens when they scream help, you do have that natural instinct that says that is dangerous. Don't do that, don't go there. And then we have that instinct of saying, no, it is right to go help that person. And the thing that you're using to judge how to do that is different than those two things in and of itself. So if it was merely the survival of the human race, we would not act according to duty, according to honor, according to the moral law, in order to go help that person that is in need. We would say, no, that is not going to perpetuate my genes if I get caught up in that burning building, or if I drown because I'm trying to save her, or if I get stabbed because I'm trying to help this other person getting stabbed in the robbery. No, that's not going to perpetuate my genes. So I better just stay up out of there. Yet we do it all the time. Why? Because that's not the basis of morality. So we could not know what injustice looks like if there was no objective standard. Moral comparisons demand an objective moral law. Our reactions help us to discover the moral law. And if there were no moral law, then that we would not make excuses for violating it, and that the moral law must be absolute and not relative, because absolute morality is found across cultures. And sometimes we choose duty over instinct, which indicates an absolute standard beyond just what the natural instinct is. So premise two succeeds. There is an objective moral law, therefore, the conclusion necessarily follows. Therefore, there is an objective moral law. And this is how the argument works. It succeeds unless there is a fallacy that we can find. If the premises are true, the terms are clear, there are no logical fallacies. This argument succeeds with no hiccups. But of course, they're not going to just take this lying down. There are some objections that we need to address when we look at the moral law. One of them is you're going to hear is are you saying that atheists can't be moral? Are you saying that atheists you have to believe in God in order to be a moral person? Are you insane? Well, here's the thing atheists. Atheists can be moral, but atheism cannot ground morality, right? The issue is not the behavior, it's the moral grounding in and of itself. You cannot give a reason for why that exists and why you should be obligated to follow through on that if God does not exist. The Christian worldview can account for those things, but atheism cannot. In the end, if atheism true, Richard Dawkins is right. In the end, it's just blind, pitiful indifference. So atheism can be more atheists can be moral, but atheism cannot ground morality. There's no foundation to rest that upon, no ultimate standard, no objective truth, no moral obligation, no one to be accounted to, or no one to no account of the oughtness of what should happen. Another objection you're going to get is is something good because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is good? This is what we would call the Euthyphro dilemma. This has been around forever. The Euthyphro dilemma is could simply be put as, is something good because God commanded it? Then the good is arbitrary since he could will evil as good. God could just change his mind. He says that murder is wrong, but if it's only good because God said so, then what happens if God says murder is right? Well, all of a sudden, murder is good. Well, that doesn't seem right. Or does God command something because it is good? Then it is a moral value independent of God. So you could say that God says to not murder because it is good to not murder, and he's referring to this good that is outside of him. Therefore, we don't need God because the good is outside of God altogether. So you might as well just get rid of God and simplify it altogether. So this is the youth referral dilemma. And this is what we would call a false dilemma. This is a logical fallacy. A false dilemma says that it must be this or that presenting two options when actually more exists. So an example you can think of is either you cheated or you're a genius. But the third option could be maybe I studied, or maybe the test was particularly easy, or maybe the curve helped me to pass, or maybe I was just having a good day, or some other reason, right? So a false dilemma presents two options when more options exist, but you don't inform them of those options. And so what's the third option? Well, it is that God commands something as good because it is his nature itself is good. He is aligning with his nature, his nature is the good. So he itself is the third option. Another one that we would have is that moral values and duties, they just simply exist. This morality just simply is out there. No explanation is needed whatsoever. Goodness and justice and mercy and love and all the good moral values and duties out there, it just simply exists. Why do we need an explanation whatsoever? It's just there. We all know it's there, we all sense it's there. There is no explanation. Well, there's a couple of problems with this view. Number one, this view is arbitrary, which means that it's chosen without a sufficient reason, principle, or standard. It is there is no reason to believe it. It is arbitrary. Remember, the burden of proof falls upon the person who makes the claim. And so if you claim these things just exist without a reason, which is just arbitrary, I would say, why would you say that? But of course, as soon as you start to explain why that's the case, well, you're also undermining your claim because you're giving a reason for why there isn't a reason, right? It is irrational by definition because you're saying there is no reason. So you then you have to say out loud, okay, that's irrational. So therefore, I don't have to believe irrational things. In fact, I should not believe irrational things. And you had to provide the proof in order for me to accept that claim that these things just simply exist. The burden of proof falls on you. But as soon as you start to provide that burden of proof, this claim that you don't need reasons goes out the window with it. So one of the problems with this is that it is arbitrary. Another issue that we have is that it is unintelligible, right? What does it even mean that goodness exists or kindness exists, or justice just exists? Like, what does that even mean? Right? How much does goodness weigh? What size is justice? How tall is love? Like these are nonsensical things because it's a nonsensical complaint or objection, right? It's an it's an unintelligible uh statement all together. But further to the point, let's just assume that it's right, that morality just exists, that justice just exists, goodness exists. All of us out there, that's fine. But the question is, is what obligates me to abide by that morality? See, that's the issue. Who am I obligated to for doing it? So just because love exists, what obligates me to actually love? Now I feel obligated to love. I certainly that certainly is pressed upon me. But if God does not exist, then and these moral values and duties exist, who am I obligated to to fulfill this? Well, the human species. Well, why am I obligated to them? I don't care about them. What if I why not just do things that perpetuate my genes and you know, live, laugh, love, be merry, drink, for tomorrow we die? As Dossi S says, if God does not exist, all things are permissible. See, but if you have an obligation, you don't have obligations without an obligator. That's part of the the analytical truth. It's the effect and the cause. If you have an obligation, you have an obligator. Who are you obligated to? That's what it means to have a moral law. Therefore, an objective moral lawgiver exists. There is an objective moral law, therefore, there is an objective moral lawgiver. Therefore, a theistic God exists. My name's Matt Hazelwood. Thanks for joining us on this episode. I'll see you next time. Hey, thanks for spending this time with me on the Actual Answers Podcast. My prayer is that these conversations help you know God more deeply, trust his word more confidently, and engage the world more faithfully. Hey, if this episode was helpful, be sure to subscribe, share it with others, and send in your questions or rebuttals for future episodes at questions at actual answerspodcast.com. Until next time, keep asking these questions, keep seeking truth, and remember, Christianity doesn't hear questions, it provides actual answers. I'm Matt Hazelwood, and I'll see you next time.