|Share on Facebook|
Is Believing in God Reasonable? Pt. 4: The Moral Law Evidence
The fact that there is an “oughtness” or overarching common morality in the experience of life that supercedes the individual, society or history gives strong evidence that there is a Moral Law Giver.
--Why are there inherent ‘rules’ in being human the world over regardless of time or culture?
A Moral Absolute is a moral obligation that is objective (true for all people), eternal (true at all times), and universal (true for all places).
If there is no Moral Absolute then all moral issues are Morally Relative (only true at certain times in certain circumstances for certain people, i.e. people make up what is morally right in a given circumstance)
Rom 2:14-15—Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and now their thoughts accusing and defending them.
|'Like' The Poached Egg on Facebook!||Follow @ThePoachedEgg||Donate to TPE!|
1. Morality cannot be ultimately individual—If what is 'right' or 'wrong' is up to the individual to determine, then no one could say any action by another individual was 'right' or ‘wrong’ because any action would have been what was ‘right’ for the person doing it. If each person is their own island of morality then no one else's island has jurisdiction over any others. So, everyone is their own judge of truth for themselves and can make no value judgments about anyone else.
If there is no Creator or power higher than the individual then any individual person should be able to do what they like and not have a society, police force, friends, family or anyone else tell them what is “right” to do. Because a society is just made up of a number of individuals, who is to say that a large group's viewpoint or values are right for any another individual?
I should be able to steal someone’s possessions or rape or kill them if I prefer and not have anyone care that what I did was 'wrong' because I am the judge of my own actions. (And not only that, but I wouldn’t need to judge myself because there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to what I did—I just acted)
The idea that ‘you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others’ or ‘what is right for you might not be right for me’ is a moral judgment that you expect others to respect. But if I choose to cause you pain, why should your values (no pain, freedom, etc.) rule over me? If it makes me happy or if I think its right to cause you pain then my value judgment is just as true as yours. If I happen to like giving pain and you don’t like to receive it you can’t call my values ‘wrong’ because its right for me…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
RECOMMENDED APOLOGETICS RESOURCES FOR FURTHER READING: