Moral Argument for Gods Existence

[KanzulHuda786]

Argument from Morality
Objective morality is when something is absolutely right or wrong without any exceptions e.g. torturing little babies and eating is universally wrong whatever the circumstance.
It is something that is wrong in all places at all times.
Where can we ground these moral value what makes them morally right and wrong where do we turn to? It doesn’t mean you can’t be a good person if you don’t believe in God we are saying they will be literally no right or wrong objectively if there was no god.

� Are they just there- it is like saying when you see a glowing ball floating in the mid air and someone asks you where did that come form and you say it is just there, this is a non explanation. It is not a reasonable world view it would be unbeliveable.
�Does It comes from each Individual(conscius)- Some may say morality is based upon personal preferences you just know it by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!
If it is just to personal choice then we cannot blame a person to choose, to murder, to steal for fun. We could not hold a criminal responsible for whatever horrendous thing he did because if each individual decides what’s morally correct then there is no individual who stands above to say what this criminal has done is right or wrong. The entire criminal and court and prison system would break down.
�Does it come from Society- If it comes from society then one society cannot tell another society that it is wrong, for example Winston Churchill and British society could not have said to Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany that eradicating Jews is morally wrong. If you were part of the Nazi Germany society it would have been Ok to burn Jews alive. But the fact that we condemn it today shows us that social consensus cannot be the foundation or the place we go to get our morality or our sense of right or wrong.
� World Consensus- if the Nazis had successfully taken over the world and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide or if they instituted a policy or law all over the world that it is Ok to put Jews in concenentration camps and burn them in the oven would then become right. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer. It would matter even if the entire world agreed to it is still would be objectively morally wrong. It is also is not practical, can we ever get an accurate world consensus what will happen will everyone have a buzzer and vote for a certain decision. World consensus will never happen.
�It comes form Evolution
oThis makes morality a biological adaptation not less than your hands and feet.
oCan this be the source of morality, first of all is there any scientific evidence that can show this. Have they discovered the moral molecule for atoms. Could they ever no because morality is not a physical thing. Because thoughts, awareness and morality is immaterial. So how can a material thing bring about and immaterial thing like right or wrong.
oMorality cannot be found in a cell or matter because if we are just pieces of matter put together in a particular form, So if someone put a knife through you has he really murdered you or is it just a rearrangement of molecules.
oWe cannot blame anyone for killing for fun because then he would be genetically predetermined to do this, meaning he just evolved like that type of person. None can be judged as morality has just come by chance.
Some may say why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia.
oObjective morality is something that is right or wrong at all places at all times but evolution says that we have changed and evolved. As Darwin himself admitted said if we had evolved like sharks it would have been ok to rape because that is what they do.
oIf we have just evolve like animals then how come we don’t blame a lion of murder for killing a deer. Or if a an ape escaped from the zoo and broke into the shop and stole some banana would he get arrested for shoplifting, Of course not. So if we have evolved what has made us so special that we are the only beings that enforce moral law of right and wrong on each other, it seems like we don’t belong here.
The only way to get objective morality if from a transcendent being who is beyond humans and the universe because the creator is the only beyond human subjectivity or human bias, he is the only one who has higher authority. As objective morality is unchanging and always true no matter what, then it must come from a source that is unchanging and eternal.

To sum up

1) If objective morality exists, the only standard or ground to which to judge this is a transcendnet being outside of human bias and subjectivity (God)
2)Objective morality does exist.
3)Therefore God exist

In order to escape the conclusion 3) you have to find a legitimate reason why 1) and 2) are false.

[Danmark]

Even if one grants all the other suppositions posed by the OP, he makes a giant, unfounded leap to conclude that if there are moral universals, there must be a god.

The logic seems to be the bald assertion that people cannot agree on any basic moral proposition, and since there are such universal precepts, 'god did it.'

The perceived need to enforce morality gave birth to the human notion of god, not the other way around