To me, the moral argument is one of the more powerful arguments for the existence of God. Ravi Z. is correct.
Look at it this way: the atheist says that ultimately there is nothing but particles....hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, etc. If this is so, then how did we ever get this idea of "right" and "wrong?"
C. S. Lewis put it in a great way.....suppose you have a tree in your yard. This tree is a bad tree....it is shaped wrong, makes no shade, has thorns, drops ugly things in your yard all the time, etc. So this is a bad tree. But do we say this is a morally wrong tree? Suppose the tree drops a huge limb and kills a child. Do we hold the tree morally responsible? Suppose the neighbor comes over and kills a kid. We would hold the neighbor as morally wrong, but not the tree. Why? If the only, ultimate difference between the neighbor and the tree is that we're on a different branch of the evolutionary tree, then ultimately there's no difference between the neighbor and the tree. We may not like the way the tree grows, but we understand the way it grows due to the specie and the weather. Where did we get this idea of morally wrong?
Another way: no one would agree that it is OK to torture little puppies to death for fun. Why? Where did this concept of morals come from?
If we say there are no morals, we have no grounds to look at anyone, Adolph Hitler or any racist, and say that they are wrong.
But if we are prepared to say that anyone has ever been morally wrong, then we must admit that the morals come from outside of us. If they came from cultural conditioning, then the Nazi's (and all racists) could say that it's not truly wrong to be a racist.....rather, we just culturally disagree. Therefore if anyone is ever really, truly wrong, then the morals have to be beyond culture, and come from something outside of ourselves. (namely God).
This moral argument is so powerful because you can use it on anyone.....for everyone has something that they truly believe in, and they hold the opposite of it to be truly wrong. It might be saving the rainforests, or the whales, or pollution, or whatever. Find out what people hold dear to themselves, and ask them if the opposite of that is a cultural conditioning, or is it truly wrong. Then introduce God as the source of ultimate right and wrong.
The problem with the moral argument is in communicating it....people tend to think that we're saying that all people have the same morals, which is not what we're saying. The argument says that we all have a sense of right and wrong.....no one has ever held that all acts are acceptable. Even Attilla the Hun would'nt want you to do to him the way he does to you.
