Scene: A busy supermarket checkout line
Mary (slipping ahead): “It’s just a few items. I’ll be quick.”
Anna (quietly): “There’s a queue?”
Mary: “It’s not a big deal. I only have three items.”
Anna: “That’s not the point. Join the queue.”
Mary: “You’re really getting in a tizzy over something so small.”
Anna: “It’s not small. You’re acting like your time matters more than everyone else’s.”
Mary (pauses): “…I didn’t think of it that way.”
Anna: “Of course you didn’t, so get in the queue like everyone else.”
The Problem Materialists Cannot Explain
The short dialogue above illustrates something very profound; we are creatures with a moral foundation. We desire justice. It is found everywhere in life, even the stories we read to our children and the movies we watch; there has to be a happy ever after and we subconsciously raise that as we get close to the end. Justice is served the hero walks out at the end where all the loose ends, the denouement is served to our satisfaction.
Among the many arguments offered by Christian apologists for the existence of God, the Moral Argument stands as one of the most compelling and personally resonant. It does not depend on complex scientific theories or obscure historical analysis. Instead, it begins with something universal: the human experience of right and wrong. The argument proposes that the reality of objective moral values points beyond humanity to a transcendent moral Lawgiver.
The first premise of the Moral Argument asserts that objective moral values exist. By “objective,” we mean moral truths that are valid independently of personal opinion, cultural preference, or historical circumstance. Most people instinctively believe that certain acts—such as torturing children for pleasure or committing genocide—are not merely socially unacceptable but truly wrong. Likewise, acts of self-sacrifice, courage, and love are regarded as genuinely good. These moral judgments are not typically expressed as personal tastes, like preferring one flavour of ice cream over another. Rather, they carry the weight of obligation and the sense that others ought to recognize them as well. This widespread conviction suggests that morality is more than a human invention.
The second premise argues that if objective moral values exist, they require a foundation beyond human opinion. If morality is merely the result of biological evolution, social conditioning, or collective agreement, then it ultimately has no binding authority. Under pure moral relativism, no action is truly right or wrong; it is only approved or disapproved by a particular group at a particular time. Yet our moral experience seems to resist this conclusion. When we condemn historical atrocities, we do not mean merely that we dislike them by modern standards. We mean that they were wrong, even when widely accepted. This language of moral obligation implies accountability to a standard that transcends humanity itself.
Here the argument reaches its central claim: the best explanation for objective moral values is the existence of God. Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver, just as physical laws imply a rational source. In Christian thought, God’s nature is the ultimate standard of goodness. He does not arbitrarily invent morality; rather, goodness flows from His character. Because human beings are created in the image of God, they possess moral awareness and conscience. This framework explains why moral truths feel authoritative and why guilt, responsibility, and justice are meaningful concepts. Without such a grounding, morality risks becoming an illusion—powerful perhaps, but ultimately reducible to preference or survival strategy.
Philosopher William Lane Craig summarizes the Moral Argument in a concise syllogism:
- If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
- Objective moral values do exist.
- Therefore, God exists (Craig, 2008).
Critics have offered alternative explanations for morality, appealing to evolution, social contracts, or moral realism without God, but these do not stand up to heroic altruism — such as a soldier shielding others from a grenade or a stranger risking his life to save a child — illustrate moral beauty, but they do not in themselves prove God’s existence. The Christian view of the Moral Argument remains powerful because it connects intellectual reasoning with lived experience. It speaks not only to abstract philosophy but to the deep human sense that justice matters, that evil is real, and that love is more than chemistry.
In the end, the Moral Argument challenges us to consider whether our moral convictions are signals pointing beyond ourselves. If goodness is not a mere by-product of blind forces, then it may reflect the character of a personal, righteous Creator. For many Christian apologists, this insight provides not only a rational basis for belief in God but also a profound affirmation of human dignity and moral responsibility
Reference
Craig, W.L., 2008. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
Image by Copilot