Introduction: Morality as a Signpost Pointing to God

The moral argument for the existence of God is one of the most powerful and intuitively persuasive apologetic arguments available to the Christian defender of the faith. Unlike more abstract theistic arguments, the moral argument directly engages the human conscience—a universal and inescapable element of human experience. Every person, regardless of culture, background, or religion, makes moral judgments. They praise kindness, condemn injustice, and hold others accountable to a moral standard. But where does this standard come from?

The moral argument contends that objective moral values and duties exist and that their existence can only be accounted for by the reality of a moral Lawgiver—namely, the eternal, righteous, personal God revealed in Scripture. This article will present the moral argument as both biblically grounded and rationally compelling. It will also address and dismantle naturalistic attempts to explain morality apart from God, exposing them as insufficient and self-defeating. Finally, it will show how Scripture affirms the presence of an innate moral law written on the human heart, confirming the argument’s premise with divine revelation.

The Structure of the Moral Argument

The classical formulation of the moral argument follows a straightforward syllogism:

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.

Each of these premises must be carefully examined. The first addresses the metaphysical foundation of morality; the second appeals to human experience and conscience. Together, they lead to the inescapable conclusion that moral reality presupposes a moral Creator and Judge.

This argument does not depend on whether one likes Christianity, nor does it rely on feelings. It hinges on what best explains the undeniable reality of moral obligation.

Objective Morality Defined

Objective moral values are those that are valid and binding independently of human opinion. That is, acts such as torturing a child for fun or committing genocide are morally wrong, regardless of whether any individual or society approves of them. These values and duties are not invented; they are discovered. They apply universally.

Moral relativism, by contrast, claims that morality is determined by individuals or cultures and therefore varies from person to person or society to society. But relativism cannot account for moral outrage, universal human rights, or any notion of moral progress. If morality is subjective, then no society or person can ever be wrong—only different. But this runs contrary to our deepest moral intuitions and experience.

Biblical Foundation: God as the Moral Lawgiver

Scripture consistently presents Jehovah as the source and standard of all moral law. His character defines what is good, and His commands reflect His holiness. Deuteronomy 32:4 declares, “The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He.” Psalm 119:142 affirms, “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.”

God’s moral law is not arbitrary; it reflects His nature. Just as physical laws reflect the order of creation, moral laws reflect the Creator’s character. Because God is eternal and unchanging (Malachi 3:6), His moral standards are absolute and universal.

Romans 2:14–15 is central to the moral argument. Paul writes that even Gentiles who do not have the written Law “do instinctively the things of the Law … in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or defending them.” This internal awareness of right and wrong is not culturally conditioned—it is divinely implanted.

Thus, the existence of moral knowledge is not explained by social convention or evolutionary biology, but by the image of God in man (Genesis 1:27). This moral awareness, though marred by sin, still functions in every human being.

The Inadequacy of Naturalistic Moral Explanations

Secular attempts to explain morality apart from God fall into three main categories: evolutionary biology, sociocultural relativism, and philosophical humanism. Each of these ultimately fails to explain objective moral values and duties.

1. Evolutionary Ethics:
Naturalists often claim that morality evolved as a survival mechanism. Altruistic behavior, they argue, increased group cohesion and reproductive success. But this can at best explain how certain behaviors became widespread—not whether those behaviors are actually right or wrong. Evolution explains the mechanism of behavior, not its moral status. If our moral sense is the result of blind evolutionary processes, then it has no binding authority—only utility. Yet we recognize that some things are wrong even if they are beneficial, and some are right even if they are costly.

2. Moral Relativism:
Relativism holds that moral standards are created by cultures or individuals. But this leads to ethical nihilism. If morality is relative, then Nazi Germany cannot be condemned for its atrocities—only judged as different. Slavery, racism, and genocide could not be objectively wrong. Yet no rational person truly believes this. Moral relativism is unlivable because we all act as if some things really are right or wrong, regardless of cultural approval.

3. Philosophical Humanism:
Some humanists argue that humans can determine morality through reason and empathy. But this begs the question: why should we value reason or empathy in the first place? Who defines what counts as reasonable or compassionate? Without God, these virtues have no ultimate authority. They are preferences, not prescriptions.

At best, humanism can offer consensus, not obligation. But moral law, by its nature, binds universally—even when we don’t agree with it. That kind of authority cannot come from human beings; it must come from above.

Conscience and Accountability

Every human being possesses a conscience—an internal witness that affirms right and condemns wrong. Though it can be seared or distorted (1 Timothy 4:2), it cannot be erased. Conscience is not a product of evolution or societal imprinting; it is part of what it means to be created in God’s image.

Romans 1:18–20 reinforces this truth, stating that unbelievers “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” and are “without excuse” because God’s nature and moral standards are clearly revealed. The suppression of the moral law is not due to ignorance but rebellion. The atheist or relativist is not morally blind—he is morally defiant.

The moral argument thus reveals the unbeliever’s accountability. It bypasses intellectual games and goes straight to the conscience. It shows that the unbeliever already knows God exists—not through blind faith, but through moral experience that cannot be explained apart from Him.

Moral Obligation and Judgment

The concept of moral obligation only makes sense in a theistic framework. Obligation implies a moral authority to whom one is accountable. But if there is no God, there is no ultimate accountability—no judgment, no reward, no justice.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 affirms, “For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.” Hebrews 9:27 adds, “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” Without God, there is no foundation for ultimate justice. Hitler and a hospice nurse end up in the same meaningless void. But our sense of justice cries out against such a conclusion.

God’s existence ensures that evil will be punished, righteousness will be rewarded, and moral actions have eternal significance. Without this framework, moral outrage is incoherent, and moral heroism is pointless.

The Moral Argument and the Gospel

The moral argument not only points to God’s existence—it also prepares the way for the gospel. Once a person recognizes that objective moral law exists, the next question is: Have I kept that law? The answer, according to Scripture, is universally negative: “There is none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

The law reveals our guilt, but the gospel reveals God’s grace. Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, bore the penalty for our moral failures through His substitutionary death on Nisan 14, 33 C.E., and rose from the dead three days later, demonstrating that God’s justice and mercy are perfectly fulfilled in Him (Romans 3:26). He alone provides forgiveness and transformation through the power of His resurrection and the truth of His Word.

Answering Objections to the Moral Argument

Some skeptics argue that believers are moral only because of fear of punishment or desire for reward. But this misunderstands Christian ethics entirely. The believer obeys not merely to avoid consequences but to honor God, whose character is good, and whose love motivates obedience (John 14:15). Furthermore, even if some obey out of fear, the existence of a moral law still requires an objective source. Motivations do not invalidate the law’s origin.

Others claim that morality can evolve or be shaped entirely by culture. But this again reduces moral truth to mere opinion. Cultures may differ in application, but not in core principles—murder, theft, and deceit are condemned virtually everywhere. These shared values point to a transcendent source.

Conclusion: The Moral Lawgiver Is the God of Scripture

The existence of objective moral values and duties is undeniable, universal, and inescapable. The only sufficient explanation is the existence of a personal, holy, and sovereign God who has created us in His image and revealed His law in our hearts and in His Word.

The moral argument exposes the failure of naturalism, the hypocrisy of relativism, and the rebellion of atheism. It leads to conviction, accountability, and—by God’s grace—salvation through Christ.

Christian apologetics is not just about winning intellectual debates. It is about proclaiming the truth that is already known but suppressed. The moral argument affirms that truth and calls all people everywhere to repent and believe in the only One who can forgive their sin and transform their hearts.

You May Also Enjoy

The Principle of Causality: A Foundational Truth in Biblical Apologetics

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS