Objective Morals vs. Subjective Morals

I will try to explain it a little bit further... It deals with different "worldviews": When someone says Moose Tracks ice cream is the best flavor, they are making a subjective truth claim. The claim is NOT about the ice cream but about their opinion of that ice cream. The truth claim is about the subject (them) and not the object (ice cream). However, when someone says, insulin is a drug that can save your life if you have diabetes, they are making a statement about insulin (the object), not about the person (the subject). When choosing ice cream you can choose what you like, when choosing medicine you must choose what heals. When choosing ice cream you can choose what's true for you; when choosing medicine you must choose what's true. Do you see what I am trying to point out? I will present you with this argument for round two: P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. P2. Objective moral values do exist P3. Therefore, God exists Let me explain each premise. Premise 1 - If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. It"s hard to see why humans would have any real value if God does not exist. After all, on the atheist view, there"s nothing special about human beings. They"re just the accidental results of nature which have evolved relatively recently on a tiny speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a dangerous and purposeless universe, and which will go extinct in a relatively short time. This may sound pessimistic, but it"s the sad truth according to atheism. If atheism cannot account for moral values, then why would we have any obligations to one another? Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer who abused and ate his victims, understood this truth well. Despite being raised to believe in God, he left his faith and embraced naturalistic evolution. He put the blame of his murders on his atheistic beliefs. Without God he found no basis for human value. Chillingly, he said, "If it all happens naturalistically, what"s the need for a God? Can"t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself." Premise 2 - Objective moral values do exist. It"s common knowledge that moral values are real. As we saw in the opening illustration, people who claim not to believe in objective morality will quickly contradict themselves. C.S. Lewis said it best: "Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It"s not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson." Objective moral values do exist. And we all know it. Premise 3 - Therefore, God exists This conclusion fits smoothly with our moral experience. We all know there are immoral actions that should be condemned! In fact, we all know that we should make appropriate moral judgments. We rightly condemn slavery, racism, and child abuse and we praise self-sacrifice, humility, and generosity. The question is, what best accounts for these real moral values? During the Nuremberg Trials, the Nazis claimed that their culture determined right and wrong and so no other culture could judge them for the Holocaust. The Nazis were partly right " if morality is determined by the culture, then we have no basis for judging other cultures. Yet clearly we all know Nazi behavior was wrong (if you can"t see this, you don"t need an argument). The international courts responded by claiming that the Nazis had violated a law that is higher than culture. In other words, they had violated a real, universal moral law. Atheism certainly can"t account for this law. But theism, which holds to an eternal, holy, morally perfect Creator of the universe, can make perfect sense of it. If there is a universal moral law, there must be a universal Moral Law Giver. The fact that different parts of the world might see "truth" differently then me is irrelevant. The fact that your beliefs depend upon where and when you were born has no relevance to the truth of those beliefs. Looking forward to your next argument. :) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...