The moral argument is sound

1) If objective moral values exist, God exists.2) Objective moral values exist.3) Therefore, God exists.From the first premise my argument will be that God is necessary in order for there to be objective moral standards.From the second premise I will try to establish that objective moral values/standards do exist.If successful, this will point to the conclusion that God exists.Defining Terms:God – When I speak of God I will be thinking of the God revealed in the Bible.Objective morals – A standard for right and wrong that is valid for everyoneNecessary Being – An eternal being whose existence is not dependant on anything else.Relativism - a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them [1] Moral Relativism - The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. [2] Opening statements and first contentions:Without transcendent objective moral values we are left with subjective moral relativism which cannot justify itself because it becomes a question of which conflicting subjective authority can establish goodness, or truth. It lacks the foundation of morality altogether because of its contradictory nature in knowing right from wrong unless it borrows from such a standard. I will be looking for my opponent to establish his authority, his standard, his truth, outside of God, in order to deny God’s existence, and/or objective morality, and every time he smuggles in a moral judgment or makes a moral distinction, such as between right and wrong, fairness or justice, I will want to know what makes his judgment good, right or true. “Unless we believe in a transcendent framework of reference to right and wrong, relativism will hold sway, and relativism is self-destructive and mutually contradictory.” Ravi Zacharias [3]One of the finest exposes, to my mind, on moral relativism came from a sermon by John Piper. [4] He made the point that a relativist can only talk about his relativism with arguments but he can’t put his relativism in practice because relativism claims its statements about goodness are true, not relative, even if they don’t apply to everyone. Relativism goes against the laws of logic: 1) The Law of Identity - A=A. If any statement is true, it is true; it can`t be both true and not true at the same time. Good is good. Good is not bad. 2) The Law of Contradiction - A cannot both be A and not A at the same time and in the same relationship. Something that is good cannot both be good and not good at the same time and in the same relationship.3) The Law of Middle Exclusion – A is either A or not-A.One society states and legislates abortion as permissible, a woman`s right; another states it is wrong, that it is murder. Which is right? They both state the opposite of the other. In order to know what is right there would have to be a universal, objective measure or standard. Without it, it is just one preference verses another. One persons taste or preference is torturing babies, another prefers pizza. You can’t deny moral absolutes without undermining your view. As Michael Robinson put it:"The denial of moral absolutes is a self-diminishing exertion because the denial of moral absolutes presupposes a moral view: it is morally permissible to absolutely deny absolute moral values. So in a sense, the attempt to deny absolute moral values affirms that they exist. To deny fixed moral values is self-deflating; the denial, in the end, leads to the removal of a standard that obligates others to communicate the denial absolutely. If you ask them if they absolutely believe that there are no absolutes; they may say no. Then you just ask them if they absolutely believe their answer of no. At some point they must stand on an absolute or they fall into idiocy. [5]C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, lists principles that societies all over the world adhere to, that it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, rape, commit adultery, thus suggesting a universality morality. These principles echo the Ten Commandments, the standard for normative ethics. It shows the moral ‘oughtness’ of man. Try to imagine a culture or society that adopted lying as the norm. Hence objective values can be found in life. People from all societies speak of evil. If evil exists then there must be a fixed objective standard in which we can know it is evil. Without that fixed standard evil becomes meaningless. You can’t know evil unless you know what is good, so there must be a fixed standard or measure that is good. I believe that God built into His creatures a sense of morality that has been marred by the Fall, but nevertheless exists to an extent. Most of us recognize that torturing babies for pleasure is wrong, as is lying. Please point to in any society that this does not hold. Torturing babies is psychopathic and for anyone who supports it, don’t let them near your children.The fact that values exist at all, for most people, speaks of meaning. Meaning speaks of objective value. Why be moral if morality is meaningless? People believe that what they believe as good is objectively so (i.e. true) or else they would not hold the view they do. What purpose would morality serve if there was no true meaning behind it? People want justice when they feel wronged. Justice is an objective value. It applies to people in every culture. If you think otherwise then please list.Douglas Groothuis makes the point that statements about morality are thoughts of mind. Along the same lines, “[I]f a human being thinks or speaks…moral statements, his or her statement is true if and only if the statement corresponds with some reality outside the statement itself (given the correspondence view of truth). “ [6]It can be argued that the “reality outside the statement” would be the Mind of God, the true ideal, on the basis that “a moral ideal can exist only in a Mind from which all Reality is derived.” [7] How do you even get morality from a mindless, purposeless, amoral universe? What does such a universe care about good or evil? If God does not exist where do our moral obligations come from? In an atheist universe where does the moral incentive come from to do anything against our own self-interests? [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.encyclopedia.com... [3] http://www.powerpointapologist.org...... (under Ethical Options) [4] http://www.desiringgod.org...... [5] http://thelordgodexists.com...... [6] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. P. 358. [7] Ibid