To quote the great Greek filosofer Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
So you admit then that there is objective good and evil (or do you quote this and not even agree with it)? I said I wanted to take a break from actual arguments for/against God and ge to understand eachother better, but now I can't resist.
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Now to address possible objections:
Premise 1: You might object and say that even if God does not exist we still have objective moral values and duties, but then who is my duty to? Society? Why is society in charge of me and what do I owe them?
Premise 2: You already basically agreed that objective moral values and duties exist by quoting and building an argument off of a philosopher who says that objective good and evil exist. Besides, I think all of us at some time (unless you are indeed very evil) feel the duty to help a friend (or just another fellow human) in need at to fight for our countrey and our freedom. Why is this duty there? As I said before, the duty is not felt to society, and thus (to me, and I think it should to you as well) it implies an intelligent mind of some sort that expects me to do good and placed a conscience in me.
Here are some other objections one might give.
1. This felt obligation is an obligation to an abstact thing like an idea
This means that there is a law without a law giver. This also means that we are subject to an ideal, a pattern of behavior. Where does this pattern exist? If it does not exist anywhere, then why are we, real things, subject to lesser unreal things.
2. The felt obligation is an instinct
Here I will quote Dr. Peter Kreeft:
"The problem with that explanation is that it, like the first, does not account for the absoluteness of conscience's authority. We believe we ought to disobey an instinct—any instinct—on some occasions. But we do not believe we ought ever to disobey our conscience. You should usually obey instincts like mother love, but not if it means keeping your son back from risking his life to save his country in a just and necessary defensive war, or if it means injustice and lack of charity to other mothers' sons. There is no instinct that should always be obeyed. The instincts are like the keys on a piano (the illustration comes from C. S. Lewis); the moral law is like sheet music. Different notes are right at different times.
Furthermore, instinct fails to account not only for what we ought to do but also for what we do do. We don't always follow instinct. Sometimes we follow the weaker instinct, as when we go to the aid of a victim even though we fear for our own safety. The herd instinct here is weaker than the instinct for self-preservation, but our conscience, like sheet music, tells us to play the weak note here rather than the strong one.
Honest introspection will reveal to anyone that conscience is not an instinct. When the alarm wakes you up early and you realize that you promised to help your friend this morning, your instincts pull you back to bed, but something quite different from your instincts tells you you should get out. Even if you feel two instincts pulling you (e.g., you are both hungry and tired), the conflict between those two instincts is quite different, and can be felt and known to be quite different, from the conflict between conscience and either or both of the instincts. Quite simply, conscience tells you that you ought to do or not do something, while instincts simply drive you to do or not do something. Instincts make something attractive or repulsive to your appetites, but conscience makes something obligatory to your choice, no matter how your appetites feel about it. Most people will admit this piece of obvious introspective data if they are honest. If they try to wriggle out of the argument at this point, leave them alone with the question, and if they are honest, they will confront the data when they are alone." (Sorry for the long quote, but he explains it well)
3. Another objection might be that this obligation is felt on the human level, ot divine
I already explained this one a bit when talking about society, but I will do it again. This is basically the weakest objection because society is not some entitity that reigns over us, it is simply other people like you and me, and what do we owe them? Is society always right? Should you ever disobey them? Should a German have obeyd society in the Nazi era? Should we be reigned by a mere quantity of people? It is illogical to say that the more people agree with something the more correct it is (bandwagon thinking).
4. The last objection you might have is that it is something above you and me, but not God
Another rather simple one to answer. What else is there? If it is not an ideal, an instinct, or society: then what else could it possibly be?
This leaves us with God, and if you deny it without some very strong evidence against the argument then you are billigerent and I am done trying to convince you. It is not so bad being subject to a God who is intelligent and loves you very much. I will still be happy to discuss beliefs with you all even if I am done trying to convince you of God's existance, but if this doesn't convince you (or at least make it seem possible) then I believe you are still at the point where nothing will convince you (though hopefully that will someday change).
