Saturday, May 10, 2014

Proof God Exists from Morality

In order to try to refute this proof you have to deny objective morality, which is absurd. Watch this 3 minute video to see the absurdity of moral relativism which attempts to deny objective morality. Before commenting please take the time to watch the video, and in your comment please indicate that you've watched it, and answer this question: Yes or no - is it objectively wrong to abuse babies for fun? (**Any comments that are trying to refute the proof and don't answer this question will not be published)

Moral Relativism

Another point relating to objective morality is that everyone lives as if objective morality exists, so when professed atheists deny it with their lips, they are contradicting that with their lives - every time a professed atheist accuses a Christian of dishonesty or something else they think we SHOULD not do, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview and confirming that in their heart of hearts they DO know God.

Further Reading / Research:

Atheism - no objective morality -
Is-ought problem - Wikipedia.


  1. *Yes, it’s objectively wrong to abuse babies for fun.
    The proof-of God argument falls short from the very beginning.
    “1. Objective morality cannot exist without God”
    What is the connection between objective morality & the existence of a supernatural “God” person/consciousness, whatever?
    How are these two disparate entities even remotely, in any way connected??
    “2. Objective morality exists”.
    No problem! Agreed. Objective tenets of morality are defined, determined & practiced among collectives of human individuals, societies, also including religious bodies/churches as well. They provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the existence of supernatural, extrahuman entities, though.

    “3. Therefore God exists”
    A whopper non-sequitur if there ever was one!! Just refer to my previous comments above. ;)

    1. There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.

      Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.

      The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously.

      This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.

      For further research - click >>>

    2. +Yasmin Mohammed - "Science... tells us..." - that's the fallacy of reification. Science doesn't tell us anything - scientists tell us things, but science itself is a concept that can't speak. You've mentioned millions of years - which isn't true. The earth is only around 6,000 years old. We can know this because the Bible is true and it teaches a young earth. Your argument for intelligent design is fallacious because it doesn't tell us which God is the designer. The reality is that the biblical God is the creator, not the God of the Koran.

  2. By agreeing that objective morality exists, you've proven that God exists. Although you've then tried to weasel out of the proof by arguing that man can somehow come up with objective morality - but this is impossible because there is no way of knowing for sure which society has the right morals, and no reason for those rules to be absolutely imposed onto society as if they were objective and absolute. But no further comments will be published by you Neil ever on my blog. I've had enough of your intellectually dishonest games. (Also, you didn't indicate that you'd watched the video). Of course if you were really dishonest you could just try to post anonymously, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and do that and spoil it for everyone else - as if I get too many people like you commenting I'll just lock the whole blog down so that no one can comment. I've already had one atheist wasting hours and hours of my time on my blog pretending to be a Hindu and making long comments pontificating on things he was just making up. Eventually I realised who it was and confronted him and he stopped commenting.

  3. Objective morality is outward meaning it is not from within. If it is within it would be subjective.

    If one believes in subjective one would then have to say it was ok for Hitler and the like to do what they did.

    If one believes in objective then it would stand to reason it has to come from somewhere or something or someone. Thus you would have a moral law giver.