The Moral Argument Shows Atheists are Apathetic

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (they would just be ephemeral). (2) Objective moral values do exist (external to us). (4) Therefore, God exists.

If steps (1) to (2) are true, then step (3) follows and is logically valid.

(2) Objective Moral Values Do Exist (External To Us)
What may be construed as objective values by atheists, because they may feel guilty to deny there being objective moral values, would just be an individually subjective and assumed underlying staple of humanity according to natural selection that is ever changing, ephemeral and thus, have no objective reference or moral compass greater than one's own self.

Objective means valid and binding whether people believe in it or not. For example, even if the Nazi's thought they were right or won the war, they would still be wrong, thus they are objectively evil. Similarly, if it is an objective moral value to trust in God, even if an atheist rationalizes all kinds of reasons why he thinks God does not exist, it is still true that we ought to trust in God.

Relativism, such as Nazism, would be false if objective moral values are true. Naturalism has no objective moral values. These values are just herd mentality--some oppose Hitler, some side with Hitler. Rape according to an atheist could be a good thing and biologically advantageous to reproduce on some planet or in some societies depending on the circumstances and alleged need. Relativism has been inculcated into people: what is true for you might not be true for someone else which is a doublestandard and all doublestandards are unethical.

If morals are not grounded in God, moral values are illusory and ephemeral, not objective, just products of the flesh. Man has murdered other men, but without objective morals, who is to say murdering is wrong? It could serve a very profitable purpose if you can get away with it. The truth is God has planted His moral laws in man's heart and conscience and knows it is wrong to kill another man for no other reason than for personal gain, sport, inconsiderate behavior and carelessness. Animals are not moral agents, so what they can do is not something man should do.

So atheists try to claim there are objective moral values humanistically, but this is false because it makes man the measure of all things not God. Humanists claim human beings are the foundation of absolute moral value. Why should human flourishing be any better than the creatures which went extinct by humans? This is like racism, called specism. The starting point of humanism makes it unclear how this can be construed as objective.

What makes rape immoral? Someone is victimized. An atheist though suggests rape could be naturalism at work, but would still consider it wrong. He agrees it is wrong, but why is it wrong? God transcends society and says it is wrong because someone is victimized. But an atheist wouldn't be wrong in saying rape is acceptable, because it is just natural adaptation and propagation of the species.

Atheist moral realism claims there can be objective morals without God. They just exist as abstract entities without any foundation in God. How can "justice" just exist in atheism? Naturalistically it ought to come about relativistically. Moral obligation is incompatible with atheist moral realism. What imposes upon you this moral obligation result in moral duty to love? What obligates you to align your life to love and not hate? Selflessness and not selfishness? The question is, Where is the grounding for moral obligation? But God says, Though shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Love thy neighbor as thyself. The moral realm and natural realm are under God's sovereignty. A person might say circumcision is objectively wrong. But what if scientifically it can be proven that it is healthier for the person to be circumcised? How can one person who is so confident in what they believe to be objectivity actually be objective when they are wrong? That is why you need God's objective moral values in God's Word. Animals rape in their natural habitat, so why isn't it acceptable for humans according to the animalistic values of atheism? Such sinful belief is the sin of apathy and opens them up to suggestions to engender evil thoughts and actions.

(1) If God Does Not Exist, Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist (They Would Just Be Ephemeral)
Can you really live as a person where there is no objective values? It would be alright for someone to steal your goods or take your spouse? These are just biological and social pressures, not having anything to do with God. Then they are not objective. If you have to steal from someone to eat that is just the pressures of life, but God said don't steal. If God does not exist, then it is just a social contract. If one person doesn't get along who enjoys murdering, he is just being unsociable. Objective morals seem to exist for an atheist when it happens to them, but when it happens to others it's naturalism. These doublestandards are unethical. Objectively, God says, Treat others as you would like to be treated. If you are trying to defend true objective values, then you are claiming God exists, even if you don't want to admit it.

A student wrote a paper and got an F. The student couldn't believe it so he went to the professor and asked how he could do this to him? The professor said he doesn't like blue notebooks the paper was handed in. But the student replied, that's not fair, you can't do that. The professor replied, but aren't you the one who wrote in that paper there is no such thing as fairness and justice? That's a doublestandard. The student realized after all there are such things as objective moral values.

The utilitarian says the objective is to bring about the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Why is this the best thing? Why not give the greatest happiness to frogs and rabbits, placed over and above human beings? After all this is just a spec of dust in the universe we are living on so why are we so important? Human-centricness is selfish. But a God-centered life is unselfish.

Why should we think objective morals exist? We see physical objects around us just as we see morality that is objective around us. Just as there are physical laws so are there moral laws. What if moral laws are just a biological and cultural development? This is a genetic fallacy, because it is trying to invalidate it by trying to explain how it came about. The only reason you believe the world is flat because you were born in a different time. Just because you were born in that time is not the reason why the world is flat or not flat. It was round whether you thought it was flat or not, whether you lived in a time or place of people thinking it was flat or not. We really do apprehend moral objective values through moral experience and thought experiments of what is right and wrong. Just as the natural world has objective facts, so does the moral world.

Some believe in government sponsored torture as a means to an end whereas Amnesty International says it should not be permitted. Both sides have what they consider to be objective moral values, yet they disagree. Therefore, for them it is just relativism and is not really objective moral values. The person who thinks homosexuals should have certain rights restricted is just as right as a homosexual for wanting those rights. Both are right? Where is the objective moral values in them both being right? Therefore, there is no objective moral values for humanists. One humanist could be a homosexual, whereas another might be against homosexuals. A person has his own objective morals, but it is just his own subjective relativism; it can't be real objective moral values. The Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, Inquisition are all constructed by those who believe they were right, but those who were abused disagreed. Philosophers who study ethics realize there is an objective ground for moral values.

(3) Therefore, God Exists
Peter Hass said the Nazi ethic (nihilism) was internally consistent because how else could a new ethic be in place for so long to allow Hitler to do what he did? The only thing that could overturn them was a transcendent vantage point. To deny objective morals exist is to be morally handicapped. The nations of the world judged Germany for its immoral values and did so objectively. Moral progress helps prove objective moral values, moving towards those values.

Therefore, since objective moral values do exist, God cannot exist if there is no objective values, and if there is objective values then God must exist, we can be confident God exists. Who is author of such perfect objectivity? Certainly not an ephemeral and ever changing naturalistic world view that responds as the wind blows.

In our experiences we realize there is moral objectivity, so any sane person will accept objective moral values. Undeserved suffering of children and sexual predators are real evil. There is something really wrong with your moral theory if you deny this. These are properly basic beliefs (foundationalism) because they are so foundational to our very being and there are no known detractors of this. God is a foundational belief.

Something is commanded by God because He recognizes it to be good. Is God is Himself subservient to the good? Or does God define what is good? The good nature of God defines the good such as love the Lord God will all your heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as thyself. They flow out of the very nature of the way God is. Why is God's nature the determining factor? There isn't anything else available. Without God there are no objective moral values. God is a being worthy of worship. This is not just praise and admiration, but adoration of supreme goodness. God is the locus of perfect goodness.

What is an objective moral value? It is a value in which even if everyone in the world rejected it, it would still be true, thus it would be dependent on God. Objective moral values don't just come out of thin air. They have a cause as all things do except that which is uncreated. If God does not exist, objective moral values don't exist. That is the purest definition we are using for objective moral values. Any lesser definition based on humanistic thinking is by definition could never be as objective.

By this very definition, an atheist doesn't have objective moral values, but has something else. They may say they have objective moral values, but there is no guidepost or compass for which to identify what they would be, so they can't really use that term honestly since nobody agrees in atheism what such values are. They would just be ephemeral.

How can we prove objective moral values exist? I am not sure how you can prove objective moral values exist without proving God exists. If God exists, then, obviously, His values are objective (since He is eternally existing and nothing can supersede God); so the moral argument might not be able to prove God exists (though you can sense by the Holy Spirit atheists don't have the morality of the Holy Spirit), but it is true God is proven since (1) nothing in nature can happen all by itself, so there must be the uncreated; (2) there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because the exponential progression of conscience tells us we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do; (3) fine tuning is specified complexity and thus, can't arise by naturalistic necessity or by chance, so must be by design; and (4) there is no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus that fits the data.

I have never met an ethical atheist in my life. Whereas a Christian may have some selfish or sin still lingering in them, I can at least sense the maturing and the Holy Spirit indwelling their spirit to know they are a child of God, whereas an atheist doesn't have this nature to himself, for he is without God's life. This intuition I have is undeniable. I can't deny it. Spirit speaks with spirit. This comes from knowing God's Word and my spirit being strengthened by the Holy Spirit. Since God is proven, this gift of the Spirit is manifested and a spirit of wisdom and revelation, and a spirit of discernment.

I simply would not want to live in a world where atheism was true, let alone any other religion that is not Christianity.

Though I do wish someone could give me in very succinct words a proof of objective morality existing without proving God first--the kind that would require a God and would be needed and thus, supersedes any collective morality claimed to be objective by atheists. I am just not sure how in the heck you would do that. I am not sure if it suffices, as William Lane Craig indicates to just say the values of atheists are dependent on natural conditions of human selection above all other creatures. Though that is true about the corrupted hearts of atheists, even so, how does that prove there necessarily must be objective moral values that exist above that and thus prove God's existence? I know objective moral values exist because God is proven in the 4 points above. That is all.

I trust you know what I am asking for. I wish I could just call up William Lane Craig and hear his answer.