Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

[JWeinCom]

Dota2Gamer said:

I have not yet found a convincing counter-argument against the Moral Argument as a proof of God's existence. Granted, I admit I have my own bias since I'm a Christian. We have our own biases anyway but I'm open to hear some different opinions. How would Atheists in this forum counter the moral argument. And please, don't misrepresent the moral argument. I'm not saying that Atheists can not be moral. anyway, below is the argument:

Basically, the argument uses a deductive reasoning (no bible quotes needed)

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: God exists.

The argument is a very simple one, and can be structured something like this:

1. For an objective moral standard to exist, God must exist
2. An objective moral standard does exist
3. Therefore, God exists

It can also be taken into negative form:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

If we are just in a materialistic reality wherein you are just a clump of atoms that will eventually die and will be rearranged in a different form, what is preventing you from killing everyone for your own benefit and enjoy life to the fullest while you are alive. It is a logical thing to do.

Well, if you counter this argument by saying that morality is subjective, this means that moral codes depends on one's own interpretation. This means that:

1. Nazi people are bad, or
2. Nazi people may think that they are morally right because they are just doing what is best for their own people.

So which is it? Are they bad or good? Where do you base your decision? We all know that they are bad but again, it 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 who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,” “corrupt chemicals,” or “sinful slime?” People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys. Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young.

Atheists cannot logically condemn the Nazis for objective moral evil, while simultaneously saying that we arose from rocks and rodents. They cannot reasonably rebuke a child molester for being immoral, while at the same time believing that we evolved from slime. Reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective reference point.

You see, confining yourself in just the physical reality of the universe requires you to reject metaphysical concepts such as morality in order to stay true to your argument.

I've watched multiple debates by Atheists, including Dawkins and Hitchens, but when this question is raised, they dodged it and misrepresent the argument. Pity, I actually like them because of their deep thoughts even though I disagree with them.

The fact that all humans agree on the concept of good and evil further justifies the bible's quote regarding God putting morality on our hearts, Romans 2:15. Because if we are just a natural and physical occurence, there is no right or wrong, there is only strong and weak.

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

- Romans 2:15

There is a problem in looking for an argument against the moral argument.  Because that is again to shirk off the burden of proof.  The argument is not good unless it can be disproven.  It's not good until it has been proven.

Nevertheless, this is one of the weaker arguments with obvious flaws.

First off, you haven't defined what objective morality is.  So, depending on what you mean I may or may not agree with you that it exists.  But whether or not I agree with you, I can say with 100% confidence that you have not demonstrated it to exist.

Secondly, there is the Euthyphro dilemma which imo effectively counters this argument in the time of the ancient greeks.  To sum it up, quickly it poses this question.  Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it's moral?

If something is moral because god demands it, then human morality is effectively negated.  It is not morality, it is obedient.  We are not doing what we think is right, we are just following orders.  And if you believe in the god of the Bible who allows slavery, slaughter of children and war criminals, taking females of a conquered nation to be sex slaves, orders the stoning of gay people,  and so on, it becomes more problematic.   

As far as a reference point, you're right.  We do need a reference point.  But a reference point is trivially easy to create.  We can use me as a reference point.  If we say that morality is whatever Justin says is right, then that would be sufficient grounds for objective morality.  And it would be a much better system because not only am I more moral than god (if you take the Bible to be literal) I'm also a much better communicator.  You'd never have to wonder what was moral, you'd just have to ask me! And I've been shown to exist, and I have drowned 0 babies (god has done a lot more).  I'm guessing you won't accept me as a moral authority, but then I'd ask why we should accept god (even if he does exist) as a moral authority.  

But assuming we don't want me as a standard (which maybe we should tbh) we can also use human well being as a standard.  We are a social species, and as such we have evolved to be empathetic, and to a degree cooperative.  To establish a society these are necessary traits.  So if we agree we want a society that helps humans flourish, then that could serve as a standard.  From there, we can pretty easily make moral assessments.  Buddha made a moral system superior to Christianity way before Jesus was supposedly born btw keeping this principle in mind.  

Ultimately, the argument appeals to our desire to make morality very simple.  But, morality is complicated.  And saying "well the big guy says so" doesn't really solve this problem.