Last week, we established that there is absolute moral truth; this week we will propose the necessity of an absolute moral truth giver.
Without a transcendent source, moral truth cannot be anything other than subjective, and changeable. Since there are moral absolutes, there must be a source, and that source must be good, powerful and a person. In short, God.
=) The source of moral law must be powerful enough to enforce that law. The only being both good enough and powerful enough to do so must transcend both time and space in order to enforce a law effective for all people at all times.
=) The source of moral law must be good. Since it has been determined that moral law by definition is good, the source of that law must also be good. Because that source must be a person, it must be God. God is by definition good, so any being that is not good is not God.
=) God must be a person, as moral laws, like civil or criminal laws, can only be enforced by persons.
Skeptics often have objections based on variations of the following argument:
If moral absolutes are given by a God, then they are both arbitrary and changeable – if God changes his mind, then the absolutes would change, and are not absolute. Therefore, there is no moral absolute and no God. In addition, if moral absolutes are not given by God, but are separate from him, then there is no need to even believe in a God, and if there is one, he is not sovereign since even God would be subject to such laws.
As usual, the problem as stated appears to be valid only because of a misunderstanding of the nature of both God and moral goodness. Moral absolutes are not good because God says they are good. They are good because GOD is good.
GOD IS GOOD. This is important to understand in order to understand the nature of moral law. God is NOT ‘good’ because He does good things – ‘good’ describes the nature of God in that everything about God is good. God is the standard and source of everything good. God must be good in order to be God and since He is the source of all things good, moral absolutes must originate from God.
God is bound by moral absolutes not because these absolutes are somehow more powerful than Him, but because they are a reflection of His nature. For God to be able to violate His own nature would be to prove that He is not God.
So, if (as we determined in part one) moral absolutes must be good and transcendent, then the source of those laws must also be good and transcendent. This source must also be a person, as objects without personhood cannot actively enforce such laws. Good, transcendent, person…. that would be God.
Next Signpost: Consciousness vs Naturalism