RETHINKING GOD AND MORALITY: IS THE MORAL ARGUMENT A SUFFICIENT PROOF FOR THEISM?
The moral argument for theism contends that the reality of objective moral values necessitates the existence of a divine moral lawgiver who is responsible for human morality. Despite the prominence of moral argument in Christian apologetics and analytic philosophy, many critics argue that it lacks epistemic and metaphysical force to convince all reasonable people. Therefore, this study explores the developmental trend of the moral argument with a view to assess the logical structure, assumptions and implications, and evaluate the strength of secular alternatives to divine-command-based moral realism in order to determine whether the moral argument is a logically and metaphysically sufficient proof for God's existence. This study adopts qualitative philosophical methodology based on conceptual analysis, historical interpretation, and comparative evaluation. The findings reveal that while the moral argument is a philosophically compelling component of a cumulative case for theism, it is not robust enough on its own to constitute conclusive proof for God's existence. The paper submits that the argument's primary strength lies in its ability to offer an elegant explanation for moral reality, particularly for those with preexisting theistic leanings, rather than serving as a definitive and universally persuasive apologetic.
Keywords: Moral Argument, Morality, Divine Command, Theism, God's existence