The Moral Argument for a God

Updated: Nov 24, 2020

The Moral Argument is simply an argument for a monotheistic god and not any specific one. Basically, this argument states that there are objective moral values, and that these objective moral values can only be founded within a personal being. Here is how it goes:

  1. If objective moral values exist, then a supreme being must be the standard for the objective moral values.

Side Note: A “supreme being” is a personal being that defines all personable things.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, a supreme being must be the standard for objective moral values.

Before moving on, it must be noted that this argument is very similar to the argument for reason, because this knowledge of reason and of morality can only be comprehended by personal beings. Therefore, only personal beings can hold a standard for morality; or else, morality would be useless. It must also be mentioned that not just any personal being can become a standard for objective moral values. Physical personal beings (humans) cannot be the standard for objective moral values because that would allow for different standards of morality and therefore morality would be subjective instead of objective. So, if there are objective moral values then there must be a supreme being that defines all personable things like reason and morality.

Morality and the Personal Being

Premise one states that only a supreme being can be the standard for objective moral values. Why? First, what are morals? Morals, as defined by Merriam Webster, are “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.”[1] So, morals are basically what forms ethical standards. However, why do these standards seem to only apply to humans? When one talks about animals, they do not talk about morals but instinct. Why cannot morality be that of instinct for humans? Instinct is defined as “a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity.”[2] So, instinct is an impulse—an involuntary yet necessary action. Whereas, when one talks about morals, it is assumed that right and wrong is a choice. It is talked about in the “should do’s” and the “should not do’s.” Meaning that morals can only be applied to those that have free will (personal beings). Therefore, only a personal being can be a standard for objective morality.

The reason why a personal being must be a standard for objective morality is because of the alternative: the personal being setting a standard because it is good. However, if this personal being sets a standard because it is good, then there must be some basis for why it is good; meaning, one is back to asking: where does this standard come from? Also, is what is good depended upon whether this personal being wills it or not? No, something can only be good if it is based on the nature of this personal being; otherwise, morality would be equal to that of emotions—unpredictable and foundationless. Meaning, this personal being is the standard of what is right and wrong. So, whatever is positive to its nature is good and whatever is negative to its nature is wrong.

Do Objective Moral Values Exist?

The second premise states that objective moral values do exist. However, where or what is the evidence? Humans are the evidence that objective moral values exist. Answer the following questions and then one will understand why humans are evidence enough that objective moral values do exist:

  1. Was Hitler wrong to do what he did?

  2. Is it wrong to torture a child for fun?

  3. Is it okay to murder (the taking of an innocent life) someone?

  4. Should one, given the choice, save a dog or a human?

  5. Should one help those in need?

  6. Should one murder and then eat another human in order to survive?

  7. Should one punish those who do “wrong?”

  8. Should the punishment fit the crime?

First, if morality did not have an objective standard, then all seven of the above questions should have different answers depending on the person. However, it is assumed that one not only chose the “right” answers but also one knows that all other sane humans would pick the same “right” answers. Why? Atheists would typically say that humans all evolved to think the same way. However, that does not explain why it is not then simple instinct instead of a choice—which requires reason, something the atheist cannot explain. Nor does it explain why humans evolved in that way. Why, shouldn’t a human murder and then eat another human in order to survive? Is it not survival of the fittest? Ultimately, it only makes sense that there is some supreme being that is the standard for morality.


Objective moral values do exist and are evidence of a supreme being. Since objective morality exists, humans have an inherent responsibility to perform in a morally correct way—given to them by the supreme being. This is because, it wouldn’t make sense if this supreme being gave humans a sense of right and wrong and also reason in order to determine the difference between right and wrong for nothing. This essay merely shows that there is a supreme being; however, the Network’s Foundation Series claims to have the answer to who this supreme being is. So, if one found this essay to be convincing, it would be unwise not to check out the Network’s Foundation Series.


Merriam-Webster. "Definition Of MORAL." Merriam-Webster.Com. Accessed January 2, 2020.

[1] Merriam-Webster, "Definition Of MORAL," (Merriam-Webster.Com, Accessed January 2,


[2] Merriam-Webster, "Definition Of INSTINCT," (Merriam-Webster.Com, Accessed January 2,


35 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All