Well let's get to buisness.

I will be discussing the moral argument for the existence of God. Now if you refer to my blog on tuesday I lay out the premises. So I will be discussing premise one which most atheists and theists agree on.

1. If God does not exist the objective moral values do not exist.


Now before I begin I think it is crucial I make some of my terms clear. First off, I am not saying God is necessary to know right from wrong. I don't need God to tell me that I should not abuse my child and torture him/her. God is not necessary for our knowledge of moral values. Now what I am saying God is necessary for them to be objective. Now this is the difference Moral ontology means the existence of moral values. Moral epistemology means the knowledge of moral values. Many detractors of the argument always seem to raise that common misunderstanding. So read this a few times.


Okay now we all know evolution is true. Livingstone if your reading this please bear with me. So we evolved so everything that we as humans have are byproducts of evolution. So since we evolved than the sense of moral values we have also evolved and are merely subjective. Michael ruse explains

" The position of the modern evolutionist....is that humans have an awareness morality...because such a awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands, feet and teeth.... Considered as a justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate it when somebody says ' love thy neighbor as you love thyself ' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves..... nevertheless.... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just a aid to survival and  reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory...."


Since we evolved morals did too. And moral values weren't selected for their truth value but for their survival value. Since they help our species survive they are just subjective. They don't mean anything they are just the result of socio-biological evolution. So when the rapist or the sex offender commits a crime they are just acting out of fashion in contrary to our subjective beliefs of morality. They didn't do anything wrong. If God does not exist we are just accidents of nature and we are not special in anyway. We are morally equal to the life of a pig or fly. Our morals are just accidents and don't mean anything.



So I think that premise one is something most atheists would agree with after some reflection. Now to be clear I don't adopt this view of morality I think morals are objective and whoever breaks the moral code is worth of being punished. Next time we will discuss premise two of the argument. Then after that I will give answers to objections and then I will finally move on to my next argument which is the contingency argument for the existence of God.