%20-%20Introduction%20(published%2010-28-2022;%20article%20%23368;%20series%20article%20%231).jpg)
Introduction
Greetings, dear reader! This is the second article in the Christian Evidences topic section. The first article on 10/28/2022 introduced the topic series and explained my purpose in writing it.
This article is the first of three answers to the question, “Does God exist?” This article affirms the moral argument for the existence of God.
Please note that each of the three answers proves independently that God exists. One line of proof is sufficient. We have three lines of proof.
The three lines of proof are like “a light supported by three poles, not just one.” Imagine a street light. One strong and tall pole secures a bright street light high in the air. Imagine the same street light, supported by three strong poles.
Is your mind engaged? This article builds the first “strong pole.”
What is a Syllogism?
First, the line of reasoning must be described. It is called a syllogism. The word is transliterated from the Greek, συλλογισμός. It means logical reasoning or thinking about something in a sensible manner. Growing up, my parents taught me how to think correctly. In college, I sat at the feet of scholars who taught me the valid and sound reasoning of formal logic. I have studied the topic since college. Sound reasoning should be common sense.
To be rational is to think logically. Irrationality is based on emotion only. Far too many people are irrational, arguing from emotion only, without thinking reasonably and not using common sense.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines and gives an example of a syllogism as follows:
1: a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion (as in "every virtue is laudable; kindness is a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable").
A syllogism is a deductive argument. It is an “if-then” (or modus ponens, from the Latin “method of affirming”) proposition. A valid argument is when the conclusion must be true, if the premises are true. A sound argument is when the conclusion is true, because the premises are true.
The Moral Argument
As is stated in the introductory article:
The moral argument: If absolute moral law (morality) exists, then a Divine Lawgiver exists. Absolute moral law (morality) exists. Therefore, a Divine Lawgiver, God, exists.
The argument is valid, but is it sound? Let's set about to prove the argument. First, we must define our terms. Each definition is based on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
– Moral law: a general rule of right living, especially: such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason.
– Morality: a doctrine or system of moral conduct.
– Divine: being a deity. Deity is essential nature of a god.
Major premise: If absolute moral law (morality) exists, then a Divine Lawgiver exists.
To say, as many do, that “nothing is absolute” is a logical contradiction. “Is it absolutely true that nothing is absolute? If so, how do you know it?” For decades, I have asked several people those questions. I've watched their heads spin in circles. I have never had one person prove absolutely that nothing is absolute!
Absolute truth exists. It is self-evident. For example, one plus one always (absolutely) equals two. Mathematical truth can never be changed.
If moral law is absolute, then it cannot be changed by individuals or societies. A source of moral law (a Divine Lawgiver), which is before (in time) and above (in power) an individual or society, must exist. The “if-then” major premise is valid.
Minor premise: Absolute moral law (morality) exists.
Does absolute moral law exist? Yes, it does. The following is how anyone should know that moral law is absolute.
Consider first, if God does not exist, then human beings are composed of only matter. There is no human soul. Matter (in particular, the complex molecular structure that defines us as human) is all that exists. We are like complex computers. If so, we have no “system of moral conduct”—no right or wrong—unless we write moral code into our soulless and material programming.
Unfortunately, some human beings (as soulless, complex computers, if God does not exist) program themselves to accept as morally good deceit, theft, arson, vandalism, rape, murder, and a host of other unpleasant and harmful behaviors. Crimes (grave offenses against morality) are rampant. The news media inform us daily. Many who read this article, if not every reader, and I have been victims of crime.
Thankfully, humans (as soulless, complex computers, if God does not exist) have formed societies and nations. Most of these societies and nations have decided that it is bad (evil and immoral) to commit crimes that some people think are moral and good.
Who is right? If absolute morality does not exist, then, under the theory that “might makes right,” the majority of soulless (if there is no God) people in a society or nation determine subjective morality and judge the minority of subjectively immoral people to be evil. Evil doers are punished based on the subjective laws of the society or nation.
In this scenario, there is no absolute morality. There is no absolute evil. Society alone determines right and wrong subjectively. Society could change these determinations. Societies, of course, have and are changing their concepts of morality. For example, societies once condemned as wrong the practice of homosexuality. Today, however, many societies have decided that the practice of homosexuality is right and that anyone who thinks that it is wrong is wrong.
Consider next, can one nation (or a group of nations) judge the moral conduct of another nation (or nations), and if so, how? The classic example comes to mind.
The Nazis were absolutely wrong (committed absolute evil) by murdering six million Jews. The Nazis decided that murdering Jews (in the Holocaust) was morally right. The Allies (including the nations of Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States) judged otherwise. World War II resulted in the defeat of the Nazis (and the Empire of Japan). The Allied nations formed the United Nations (UN) after World War II to prevent another world war.
After World War II and during the Nuremberg Trials, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that a “higher law,” above Nazi law, condemned that nation. The Robert H. Jackson Center contains articles and videos about the Nuremberg Trials. (See The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, November 1945 - October 1946). In addition, the United States Holocaust Museum contains volumes of information.
One nation (or a group of nations) can judge the moral conduct of another nation (or nations) by a “higher law.” The Nuremberg Trials argued that a “higher law” condemned Nazi atrocities. Did the Allied nations (the majority) decide subjectively that the Nazis (the minority) were wrong? Of course not. The “higher law” guided their decision.
What is the “higher law?” Consider, finally, that, innately (since birth), in each person is a conscience (which can be corrupted). Innately, we come to know that evil, such as deceit, theft, arson, vandalism, rape, murder, and a host of other unpleasant and harmful behaviors, is wrong. We come to know that good, such as honesty, love, sharing, helpfulness, respect, and many other pleasant and positive behaviors, is right.
Human beings are not made up of only matter. We are not merely complex computers that evolved without souls that developed societies, which developed subjective moral codes. The human conscience (or soul) knows innately right and wrong (unless it becomes corrupt). The minor premise is valid. Absolute moral law (innately, in the human conscience) exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, a Divine Lawgiver, God, exists.
Since absolute moral law (morality) exists (innately, in the human conscience), then it must emanate from a higher being who has existed before (in time) and above (in power) human societies and nations.
That “higher being”—existing before (in time) and above (in power) human societies and nations—is called God, the Divine Lawgiver. The argument is sound. The reasoning in this article has proved it. Challengers are welcome to disagree and offer rebuttal in the comment section.
The Atheist's Quibble
The atheist, however, may quibble by asking, “Is absolute morality above God? If so, can absolute morality judge God? Or is God above absolute morality? If so, can God change moral good to moral evil, or vice versa, if he wishes to do so?”
The atheist quibble fails to understand that absolute morality flows from the very essence of God. It emanates from God's nature, which does not change.
Conclusion
Our imaginary street light now has one strong pole to support it. The moral argument by itself proves that God exists.
There are two more poles to build, the teleological and cosmological arguments, that each alone further prove that God exists. This article, however, is enough “pole building” for today.
The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes concludes:
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:12-14, NIV)
The literal translation of “this is the duty of all mankind” is "this is the whole of mankind." Our all-encompassing single purpose in life is to reverence (fear) God and keep his commandments.
The study of this article, dear reader, may have made you weary. Be refreshed! Stretch. Take a relaxing walk outside.
In reverential fear, by grace, please follow and serve God. He does not require perfection, only faithfulness. God will reward our duty now and on the final judgment day.
No comments:
Post a Comment