Some famous people have presented an Argument from morality. For example in the form of:

  1. A human experience of morality is observed.
  2. God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

Now, this is supposed to confirm us that a god must exist. I suppose it has been a great help for a number of great minds to accept the existance of a particular god of their own particular cultural heritage, even when it mad no sense. However:

1. Yes human experience of morality is observed. It often differs from culture to culture and only objective way to measure it is to compare the harm and benefits from any particular moral choise made.

2. Even if we do not know what is the source of morality, we are not warranted to make up an explanation for our moral experience. And by no means is any god the only explanation to our moral experience. But even if it was, that would not provide any truth value to that particular explanation.

3. Making up an explanation, that fits the observed reality does not make the explanation true in any way. Hence the argument is not valid.

According to such sloppy logic we could claim:

  1. A human experience of morality is observed.
  2. Moral causing genie is the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
  3. Therefore, moral causing genie exists.

In fact, a god is no explanation to anything we observe. For it to be an explanation, it would have to be first observed in some way. Even at best a god is just a flimsy hypothesis. A guess to fill in our ignorance. By any means does this not logically lead us to believe it to be true.

The fact that we can observe the sun to set every evening gives no truth value to the explanation, that a giant serpent eats it on the other side of the earth for every night, not even if it was our only explanation to the fact.

The Argument from morality has also been presented as follows:

  1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
  2. Morality is objective and absolute.
  3. Therefore, God must exist.

This gets even sillier. If one sets the first premise to be the conclusion and second premise to make claims impossible to verify, then the entire argument is nonsensical.

1. Why? Could there not be absolute morality without a god?

2. Is it? Is morality not more like the social norm of situational ethics?

3. False premises almost invariably lead to false conclusions.


  1. If water is objective and absolute, Poseidon must exist.
  2. Water is objective and absolute.
  3. Therefore, Poseidon must exist.

Water is certainly objective and wether it is “absolute” or not may be debatable, but even if it was “absolute”, that really tells us nothing about the existance of Poseidon, does it?

How is morality determined? By an authoritarian command by a particular religion? A democratically elected government and legistlation? Social norms and rules of the society? By a divine dictator that an individual grants the right to decide what is right or wrong regardless of the cultural heritage, or the conscience of the individual? Or perhaps, by comparing the results of each and every action to the harm vs. benefit results?

Yes, there could very well be “moral absolutes” without a god. If morality is the behaviorial model of social conduct, that supports the survival of the fittest species, then there really is no need for a god to explain it. However, even if it was not a form of social conduct, but more like a separate law of nature like the gravity, we simply would not know the reason for it, and certainly would not be warranted at claiming it must have been this or that god. We would simply not know, much like in the case of gravity.

Morality is not restricted in human experience. All mammals at least show to have forms of moral behaviour. More social the species, more solidarity is presented in it’s behaviour. All social species show at least rudimentary forms of revenge, punishment and conscience. This tells us how such a trait of understanding good and bad has evolved and how it is a beneficial trait for the species to survive as it developes more advanced forms of rules for social conduct. Where are gods in this process? Nowhere to be observed…

How could we go about determining the “moral absolutes”? The only way logical to me would be to observe, and compare the benefits and the harm caused by actions. And yes, there could exist the most beneficial and least harmfull “absolutes” for each individual action. But that is the best we could possibly hope for to achieve, and if that is not moral enough, then what is?