Whenever one sees a moral quality to something in existence, there must be behind it, a moral author. Morals do not crop up spontaneously. That “something behind morals and the principles of right and wrong, good and evil” must be a moral Creator, i.e., God. Therefore, God must exist.
An argument for the existence of God comes from Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College. Dr. Kreeft has written:
“I’m going to argue for the existence of God on the premise that moral good and evil really exist. They are not simply a matter of personal taste; not merely substitutes for ‘I like’ and ‘I don’t like’. “To clarify, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral; of course, they can. Just like theists can act immorally.
“So, where do good and evil come from?
“Atheists commonly propose a few possibilities: evolution, reason, conscience, human nature and utilitarianism. None of these, however, can be the ultimate source of morality.
“Evolution? Any supposed morality that is evolving can change. If it can change for the good or the bad, then there must be a standard above these changes by which we judge them as good or bad. An example of this is that throughout human history, more powerful societies have enslaved weaker societies—and prospered. That’s just the way it was, and no one questioned it. Today, we condemn slavery. But, based on an evolutionary model, one that is ever changing, who is to say that slavery might be acceptable again one day? Slavery was once accepted, but it was not, therefore, right and good. If you can’t make that distinction between something being accepted and being good, then you can’t criticize slavery! If you can see the distinction, then you are admitting to objective morality.
“Reasoning? Whereas reasoning is a powerful tool to help us discover and/or understand morality, it cannot be the source of morality. For example, criminals use reasoning to plan a murder, without their reasoning telling them that murder is wrong. And was it reasoning or something higher than reasoning that led those Gentiles to save the lives of Jews threatened by the Holocaust? The answer is obvious: it was something higher than reasoning, because risking one’s life to save the life of a stranger was a very unreasonable thing to do.
“Conscience? Conscience, alone, cannot be the source of morality. Every person has his own conscience, and some appear to have none. Heinrich Himmler, commander of the brutal Nazi SS, successfully appealed to his henchmen’s consciences to help him do the ‘right thing’ in murdering and torturing millions of Jews and others. How can you say that your conscience is right and Himmler’s was wrong if conscience alone is the source of morality? Answer: you can’t.
“Human Nature? Some people say that human nature is the ultimate source of morality. But, human nature can lead us to do all sorts of reprehensible things. In fact, human nature is the very reason we need morality. Our human nature can lead some of us to do real evil, and all of us to be selfish, unkind, petty and egocentric. We surely would not want to live in a world where human nature was unrestrained. Human nature cannot be a reliable source to tell us whether an act is good or evil—thus, moral or immoral.
“Utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is the claim that what is morally right is determined by whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But, to return to our slavery example, if 90% of the people in a society get great benefit from enslaving the other 10%, would that make slavery right? According to utilitarianism—it would.
“Now that we see where morality cannot come from, let’s see where it does come from. What are moral laws?
“Unlike the laws of physics or the laws of mathematics, that tell us ‘what is’, the laws of morality tell us ‘what ought to be’. But, like physical laws, they direct and order something, and that ‘something’ is right human behavior. But, since morality does not exist physically (there are no moral atoms, or cells or genes) its Cause must be something that exists apart from the physical world. That thing must, therefore, be above nature, i.e. supernatural. The very existence of morality proves the existence of something that is beyond nature and beyond man. Just as a design suggests a designer, moral commandments suggest a Moral Commander. Moral laws must come from a Moral Lawgiver. That Source is God, the One Who has revealed Himself in His Word.
“So then, the conclusion of this argument is that whenever you appeal to morality, you are appealing to God, whether you are willing to admit it or not. You are talking about something religious, even if you think you are an atheist.”
“When we discuss the existence of God, we define Him as a perfect Being, greater than anything else which can be conceived. If God does not exist, then the very name "God" refers to an imaginary being. This makes the definition of "God" contradictory, for to be real, to be living, to have power, is greater than to be imaginary. It is clear that I cannot even discuss the word "God", by definition, if He does not exist. I must conceive of Him as really existing in order for Him to be greater than anything else, for a God Who does not exist obviously cannot be greater than anything else. "For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: Let God be true, though every man were a liar." Romans 3.4
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11.6”
Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury, lived 1033-1109. Anselm devised a system of thinking that has since been named Scholasticism, which dominated the Medieval world for hundreds of years. Anselm’s greatest contribution to philosophy was his development of what has been called, the “ontological” argument. (Ontology is the study of being and existence.) In Anselm’s own words, his basic proof of God’s existence rests in his statement that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." I do not pretend to be able to delve to the depths of all the things Bishop Anselm wrote and thought about this principle; but I can try to understand: The reasoning behind this principle is that there is nothing of which we can conceive that cannot be improved. In other words, there is no object or thought that cannot be replaced by something greater. However, there must come eventually, something that is at the end of improvement or created greatness. That “something” must be God, Himself. Therefore, He must exist.
Well…I hope I have convinced some of my readers of the truth of God’s existence. I pray His blessings on each of you!