The Moral Argument for God

[guyforGod]

hey all, i've been reading up on CS Lewis' moral argument and i THINK i get it.... could one of you who understands it possibly sort of summarize it here for me, just so i can be sure that i have it?


thanks!

[gymnast_girl_27]

sorry, I haven't read that *yet*!

[DaveJes1979]

If you want to understand the moral argument for the existence of God, I suggest you see my postings under "Transcenental Argument for the Existence of God." The transcendental argument includes many elements of the moral argument. I hope its not too technical.

David Gadbois

[Karen M]

Hello Guy :)

I'm not sure if this is the same arguement, but the one I usually get is this:

You have to assume that the only place morality can possibly come from is God, okay? :)

Now:

1. Morality exists.

2. Therefore, God exists


Make sense? :)

I personally think its bunk and morality comes from somewhere else, but remember, I'm not a Christian, so you may want to wait for someone else to respond if you want a Christian viewpoint.


Hope that helps :D

Karen

[MrCrabby]

Really, all you need for these arguments to work, is to believe in absolutes.
Then all these arguments make perfect sense:)

[SnapCase]

I've read this section in Mere Christianity. It was good. however I've seen that the argument normally doesn't work. Most non-theist will argue that morality is absolute because we make it absolute.

Even in my opinion the argument doesn't work.

[Bryan]

Originally posted by SnapCase
Most non-theist will argue that morality is absolute because we make it absolute.

If this is true the fact that it is absolute is relative in itself which makes it not absolute.

[Chrysostom]

There are almost a million arguments that will work if someone is leaning towards Christ but isn't quite there yet. The moral argument is one of them.

It goes essentially like this:
1. There are moral absolutes within our universe. We know this because most all cultures have similar morals.
2. The only explanation for how this could be is that God created the universe that way.

It's included in the transcendental argument because it states that absolutes cannot exist without God, therefore God exists because absolutes exist.

Interesting fact: CS Lewis was a hardcore atheist\agnostic who eventually met Jesus through such awesome (and respected) friends as JRR Tolkien.

[Bryan]

That is an interesting fact, thanks for sharing John.

[Adam]

The Transcendental Argument is the best argument for the moral argument (and everything else as well). Also, Dave, check your private messages (unless you have received my email, which says the same thing).

[skippydj]

I understood it as saying that man in inherently (I can not spell) evil so that man could not come up with any positive morals on his own, so from that ther has to be a God that set these morals in place for us. If there was no God then ther would be no judgement and therfore no reason to follow any social rule.

C. S. Lewis is the man. He is one of my heros. :D

[Chrysostom]

Well, let's put it this way.

According to an atheistic worldview, "we" do not really exist; it's all just particles moving around. In order to have any morality at all, we must assume first that there is a "we" (therefore something supernatural, a soul) and second that there is a standard for that morality.

Without God, there can be no ethics, hope, freedom, knowledge. This is why some deity must exist--without it we are stuck to a deterministic (and thus barren) worldview. Under a deterministic worldview, the most logical thing to do is lay there and do nothing or commit suicide to end the useless deterministic worldview.

[JerryLove]

1. There are moral absolutes within our universe. We know this because most all cultures have similar morals. Hmmm. "most" and "similar" don't sound very absolute. You also suffer from a very small sampling of the universe. Further (while you did specify "cultures" you would have a better case if you could say "creatures"... which you cannot. If your morals are absolute, than mantids are immoral creatures.

2. The only explanation for how this could be is that God created the universe that way. Taking the hypothetical that most morals are similar, there are a couple other reasons that come to mind.

Natural selection - those are the morals that work best.
Cultural expansion - morals started early enough to be spread from one culture to another.
Parallel evolution - similar groups facing similar criteria came up with similar responses.
Instinctually intrinisc - these are the morals that the human rational most readily creates to support human instincutal behavior.

[Karen M]

Hello Must :D


I have been ignoring these atheist-bashing posts because this is a Christian messageboard so you should feel free to slander and degrade non-Christian worldviews as you see fit; on the other hand, this one wasn't even on topic. Therefore, though I'm responding to this one, I ask that if you really want to discuss this that you start a new thread. :)


>>>According to an atheistic worldview, "we" do not really exist; it's all just particles moving around.<<<

First of all, atheism is not an entire worldview in itself. Atheism can be part of a worldview such as secular humanism, a large portion of Buddism, spirtualism(lacking a general diety), etc. Therefore, my answers will be from my point of view but may not apply to other atheists who have different worldviews.

Now, I don't understand your statement above? Perhaps you could reword it? Your assertion is seems faulty within itself to me... :( You just asserted that we both do not exist and then you proceeded to show what we are made of. How can something that does not exist be made of particles? ;) Under my personal worldview, we are made up of atoms if that is what you are asking? Does a table now not exist just because it is made up of wood? Under your worldview, do you not exist because you are made up of a soul? I don't understand where you are comming from in this assertion?



>>>In order to have any morality at all, we must assume first that there is a "we"<<<

Which we agree on that there is a "we"


>>>(therefore something supernatural, a soul)<<<

This is not necessary. Please back up your belief that something must be made up of supernatural things to exist?


>>>and second that there is a standard for that morality.<<<

Under my worldview that standard is logic, evolutionary instinct, and social contract.


>>>Without God, there can be no ethics, hope, freedom, knowledge.<<<

Would you like to back up this assertion with anything? ;)


>>>This is why some deity must exist--without it we are stuck to a deterministic (and thus barren) worldview.<<<

First, you failed to back up your first premise. Second, why does a lack of a diety necessitate a deterministic worldview? Third, under what reasoning are you asserting that a deterministic worldview is "barren"?


>>>Under a deterministic worldview, the most logical thing to do is lay there and do nothing or commit suicide to end the useless deterministic worldview<<<

Incorrect. Just because what we will do is pre-determined does not mean that life is useless. You will have to back this up on the new thread.


I will be back once you have begun a new topic. :)

Karen

[Karen M]

It won't let me edit it my above post, so I'm going to state my correction here. :p

When I read back over the first paragraph of my post it almost looks like I'm implying that Christians normally slander other religions. I would like to note that this was not the intended meaning and that I was basically trying to show that I did not think that Must's post should be considered rude. For example, if this was a Hindu board I would not think a post slandering Islam would be rude because it would be the Hindus' board and they can say what they believe about other religious(whether the statement is true or false) and it would not be considered rude. On the other hand, if someone went to that Hindu board and started slandering Hinduism on their own board that would be rude. Hope this clears that up that there was nothing degrading intended in my post above. :)

[Chrysostom]

Jerry:
I was outlining the argument and not trying to argue it. It's an ineffective argument against a true skeptic and so it would be useless to debate :)

[Jeff]

I see how the arguement is bunk, i used to take it very seriously.
BTW, I hold that there are absolute truths as in things that exist, circumstances that are actually the case, but as to morals that are absolute, that would make no sense at all, and I see none that are.

[Chrysostom]

And what makes a truth absolutely exist?

[Karen M]

Reality. The apple is either red or green. It is not both. You are talking about logical and mathmatical absolutes now. These have nothing to do with the Moral absolute arguement used to support God(which are the "absolutes" I do not believe exist, though I can not speak for others).