Why do people generally think that some actions
are right and some actions are wrong,
regardless of their subjective opinions?
Why do most people
generally believe that it's unfair
for a known cheater to win
a race at the Olympics?
Why do most people believe it's evil
or wicked for an adult to torture
an innocent child simply for the fun of it or for
a man to force himself sexually upon a woman?
Why do people generally think
that such actions are outright wrong?
Because most people--even many atheists--
know that real objective good and evil exist.
Although objective morality may be
outside the realm of the scientific method,
every rational person can know
that some things are innately good,
while other things are innately evil.
Atheist Michael Ruse admitted in
his book "Darwinism Defended" that,
"The man who says that it is
morally acceptable to rape little children
is just as mistaken as the man
who says that 2+2=5."
Philosophers Frances Beckwith
and Gregory Koukl said it well:
"Those who deny obvious moral rules--
who say that murder and rape are morally benign,
that cruelty is not a vice
and that cowardice is a virtue--
do not merely have a
different moral point of view,
they have something wrong with them.
Most rational people do not merely
feel like rape and child abuse may be wrong--
they are wrong--innately wrong.
Just as two plus two can really
be known to be four,
every rational human can know
that some things are objectively good
while other things are objectively evil."
However, reason demands
that objective good and evil
can only exist if there is some
real objective point of reference.
If something such as child abuse can be
legitimately criticized as morally wrong,
then there must be an objective standard,
some higher law which transcends space and time.
Recognition by atheist of anything
being morally wrong begs the question:
How can an atheist logically call something
atrocious, deplorable, evil, or wicked?
According to atheism,
man is nothing but matter in motion.
Humankind allegedly evolved
from rocks and slime over billions of years.
But whoever speaks of wrong rocks,
moral minerals, or corrupt chemicals?
People don't talk about morally depraved donkeys,
evil elephants, or immoral monkeys.
Dogs are not depraved for stealing
the bone of another dog.
Pigs are not punished for being immoral
when they eat their young.
Male animals are not tried for rape if they appear
to force themselves upon female animals.
The fact that humans
even contemplate morality
testifies to the huge chasm
between man and animals.
Simply put, the moral argument states
if objective moral values exist, then God exists.
Objective moral values such as good and evil,
justice and injustice do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
The moral argument for God's
existence exposes atheism
as either self contradictory
or outright appalling.
You see, the atheist must either reject
the accuracy of the moral argument's first premise
and illogically accept the indefensible idea
that objective morality somehow
arose from rocks and reptiles
or he must reject the argument's second premise
that objective moral values exist
and accept the utterly repulsive idea that
such things as rape, murder, and child abuse
can never once be condemned
as objectively wrong and evil.
What's more, if atheism is true,
individuals could never logically be punished
for such immoral actions since they
could not be proven to be inherently immoral.
If there is no God,
then there is no objective basis to say
that some things are right
and other things are wrong.
Reason demands that objective
good and evil can only exist
if there is some real objective
reference point outside of nature.
The only reasonable answer
to an objective moral law for humans
is a supreme, supernatural, moral Lawgiver.
