Hello Dr. Craig! I'm a follower of your work and a fan of yours. I study your books just about everyday so I can learn and prepare myself as a Christian for the rest of the world waiting to maul me where I stand! I have question for you today regarding the second premise of your moral argument. This argument is dear to me because I recognized that there truly is good and evil in our world and I came to Christianity because I truly believed in love, justice, and so forth. (Keep in mind this was also before I even knew about this argument!). So when I found out about this argument when I discovered your work I was astonished! So you can see why this argument is dear to me, because it's so close in how I came to Christ!
This is your argument:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exist.
Premise (1): I understand the ontology of premise one, that for these moral values and duties to be objectively binding they need to be grounded in God. Without God, who says? Moral values and duties become a giant relative fighting pit and whoever comes out on top gets to be called king and make the rules.
Premise (2): Now for my questions about premise (2). I understand the justification of our moral experience, how it is the exact same case for the physical realm. But my question, probably popular among my generation, is how these values and duties seem so relativistic. I truly believe in good values like love, generosity, justice, equality, and self sacrifice and it's very obvious to me that cruelty, brutality, and vengeance are evil. Now these things seem to be very obvious to everyone in our era. But what's troubling me is when I look back in time at the holocaust, crusades, and tribes that would perform just atrocious acts. Do they even believe the same values that I do!? It just seems so odd that they can throw babies into fire, use them as target practice, or slaughter people to such a caliber! Or that tribes could eat each other, be so brutal to their children or elderly! Or again huge populations being enslaved and beaten to death! It's just so unthinkable! How do these people not perceive the value of love, equality, and so on like we do? I understand that it doesn't matter how many people do it, it's still objectively wrong. I just don't understand how so many people didn't think this was wrong. If these values and duties are objective, then it seems they should have known this was wrong? Is it the values that are different or is it just the standard of what these values are? Does brutality from one side have a higher tolerance then the other? I just don't get it and that is why I am asking you to please clarify this for me Dr. Craig.
Click HERE to read R. Craig's answer