Does Morality Depend on the Existence of God?

"I cannot see any force in an argument to the existence of God from the existence of morality"  - Christian apologist Richard Swinburne.

Morality refers to justice and love and compassion.  Without God being just and loving and caring we seem to have no reason to worry if we are practicing those things or not.  Are they even true if there is no God?

So is God THE basis for morality?

Or he is A basis for morality.

If he can be done without then its our choice if we want to be atheist.  We can find another basis if we want.  If we choose a poor basis then if there is a God after all he will be bigger than our errors so it will not matter.

So the question is, "Do God and morality definitely go together?  Is God the support for morality, the reason it is valid and true and useful?"

Playing with words

Objective morality means that some actions are really wrong. It rejects the notion that right and wrong are really only about preferences and opinions.
 
Hitting a child for no reason really is wrong - it is not a mere opinion.

God to be God, to be perfect and to be worth caring about more than anything, has to be about objective morality. If morality is separable from God then God is not God. Morality comes first not God.
 
The argument linking God and morality is:
 
1 If there is no objective morality then there is no God.
 
2 Objective morality exists.
 
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
 
But what about:
 
1 Objective morality exists.
 
2 If there is no objective morality then there is no God.
 
Conclusion: Therefore God exists?
 
A valid argument works no matter what order you put the premises, 1 and 2 in. You will notice that the first version looks strong but in fact is not. It is a trick with words.

The second version proves that the argument is assuming objective morality exists and it is doing it without bringing God in. Then it brings God in after. The argument plainly shows that objective morality can exist without God. You can assume objective morality is real morality without involving God.
 
The absurdity of the argument
 
Religion says there is no objective morality without God. In fact if there is objective morality, God has nothing to do with it.
 
If objective morality exists, it does not follow that there is a God.
 
The argument for objective morality meaning there is a God makes the same errors as
 
1 If there is no air there is no life.
 
2 Air exists.
 
Conclusion: Therefore life exists.

The worrying thing is that extremely intelligent people still dish out the argument that objective morality means God exists. That is deliberate deception and they do it because they know that a large religious audience wants to hear it and lap it up. It is a prime example of a useless argument that has been exposed over and over for centuries and they still keep repeating it as correct and valid.

Opposites ground morality not God

If doing good to a child is stupid if there is no God then harming the child is stupid too. Both actions are different. They are opposites. Both cannot be equally stupid. For that reason alone and it has nothing to do with God, if helping the child is stupid the alternative is worse. It is a brute fact that both cannot be equal. Morality then comes from a brute fact. A brute fact needs no agent to create it. It just exists. Morality is a brute fact. To try to get away from that with the notion of God is to counterfeit morality.
  
A Disgusting Question
 
God says we must do good. Is good good just because he says so? Or is it good whether he says so or not? Religion asks how we can say we can be good without belief in God.
 
Are we to suggest that a person who does not know that God exists does not really have a morality? The suggestion is an outrage.
 
Our gut instinct is that you are a good person if you respond to your instinct protect a baby from harm. There is something not right about asking, "Is letting a baby suffer not the best thing to do, is it the best, or does it not matter? If the best thing is to save the baby then why?" It is as if you are trying to argue yourself into believing in right and wrong. Forget the justification for helping and just help. Helping a baby is right because it is in its nature. Asking why it is right is like asking why is white bright!
 
Religion is using God to interfere with your good gut instinct so it is bad.

If your value is to feed the poor that is good. If it won't become your value unless you believe in a God who commands it then there is something wrong.

You shouldn't need a belief as a crutch to give you the value. It means you don't value it at all but have to find a way to imagine that you do. What happens when the scales fall off your eyes? The belief is made more important than the value. Yet reason says a belief cannot be more important than liking to help the poor.

Some will answer that they are not saying you cannot have the value without belief. They say you need to explain why you have the value and the only answer is God. We have already disposed of that nonsense.

Religion tries to get us to base morality on God. All that can do is discourage us and maybe rob us of our whole potential for it is unnatural. It implies too that we must put consciously thinking of the theory first to test ourselves to make sure we are in accord and harmony with it.  The God botherer when lives are to be saved and every second counts will pause anyway to check out his spiritual or religious state. And if the theory is false, it takes away from the goodness of our intentions. What would you think of a person who would not do good unless they were commanded to do it by a God, person or a principle?

Why God?
 
If there is need for a commander, why does it have to be God? Is it because God knows all things? Or is it because he has infinite power and all things depend on him to exist? Is it because God is perfectly good?
 
If God has to know what morality is then morality is independent of what God knows or thinks. Murder is wrong even if God, hypothetically, does not know it.
 
If it is because God has power and makes all things, that is might as right. And God has no needs for he is imperishable and eternal and perfect. So he has no right to expect anything back for creating us.
 
If it is because he is perfect then we are to take his word for it that he is perfect. If we decide that, means we are claiming to be wiser than God. We are in a position over him and can judge him perfect.

It does not make sense to say that there is no objective morality unless there is a God. Introducing laws and commands only worsens the problem.

If believers are insisting that morality is grounded in God just because it is then they show they do not believe in objective morality at all. You cannot have morality if you fill it with or base it on vicious circles. A vicious circle is an attempt to make something look proven or rational when it is not. It is a lie.

No Copyright