 Assalamu alaikum. Welcome to the Beliefs of Islam with me Hassan Hadi. In today's episode we are going to talk about the existence of God from the perspective of the moral argument. As a matter of fact, one of the primary arguments which has become popular in contemporary philosophy among his theistic scholars is known as the argument for morality. Much like all other arguments which attempt to demonstrate the existence of God, this argument has remained popular throughout history and has undergone development over the ages. Nevertheless, the argument remains relatively popular as it is one which requires a decent explanation. Human beings are normally agreeable on certain principles, namely we can agree that certain actions are advantageous and that certain actions are less advantageous and also we can agree that no one likes to be hit by heavy objects in the face which cause pain. Normally, human beings can agree that it's good to be a good human being and do good and that it's bad to be a bad human being and do bad. However, what cannot largely be agreed upon is firstly what the definition of good is and more importantly where this basic moral requirement emanates from. Now said in other words, why should I be good? And what basic requirements make me need to even think of being good? More importantly, where do these moral values find their existential grounding? And what is the basis of these moral requirements? This is an extremely deep existential question which must cause us to consider our very lifestyles. What is good and why should I even consider being good? Upon the atheistic materialist worldview, we are merrily animals who have evolved from the genetic soup and have a desire to survive and continue due to our evolved nature. Yet we find that animals tend not to observe any facts or observations for morality. When a male shark goes enforceably mates with a series of female sharks, we do not entitle this shark as a serial rapist, nor do we find that when one male wild, ferocious animal kills another of his species, do we consider this murder? Some may argue that we human beings as a more sophisticated animal have evolved to a point where we observe morality. The question is, from where did this morality come from? Some may argue that it comes from the need to survive as a human race, but what if I do not recognize the needs of the greater human race above mine? What if I care not for observing the greater good of the human race and reject these laws? Why should I be held accountable? What could be said to convince me that outside the minds of men, these laws have any meaningful existence? More importantly, what are these laws? Now, if one argues that they are what society agrees upon as a consensus, then morality is constantly fluctuating and cannot be considered objective, but rather subjective and therefore is meaningless. Because if morality fluctuates according to our desire, then why should I care about them, or even take them seriously? Why should anyone at all? For example, if one argues that morality is what we as human beings agree upon in society, then in 1940s Germany, society agreed upon the need to kill innocent human beings because they were Jewish or Gypsy, for example. Would such an agreement be considered moral? Surely not. For morality is clearly something objective, something beyond the whims and desires of peasant human minds, yet the atheists cannot simply explain it. Yet the believer, on the other hand, has good reason and justification to explain the origins of morality and where they find their existential value, namely, these morals are grounded within the nature of God, who has existed eternally and is the standard of good and evil. The argument for morality, in summary, could be phrased as follows. First, if God exists, then objective morality exists. Second, objective morality does exist, therefore God exists. Atheists attempt to refute this argument using a counter-argument. It's called the Euthyphrodilema, named after a character in one of Plato's dialogues. It basically goes like this. Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it's good? If you say that something is good because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good, and then we would have been morally obligated to hate one another. That seems absolutely crazy. Some moral values at least seem to be necessary. But if you say that God wills something because it's good, then what is good or bad is independent of God. In that case, more values and duties exist independently of God, which contradicts premise one. Now the collapse of the Euthyphrodilema is in the fact that the dilemma it presents is a false one, because there is a third alternative, namely, God wills something because he is good. God's own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his just nature. This is for today, until we meet next episode. Thank you, and assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.