Many apologetic arguments or empirical findings present evidence for the existence of God. I previously identified Pascal’s Wager as an interesting sort of argument that advocates for belief in God without establishing the existence of God. I built on that argument to provide a more robust Vandivierian Wager. In this article I present a separate argument which follows similar lines: If my argument is true then it follows that an individual should believe in God, although I don’t bother to establish that God actually exists in this argument.
As an aside, if you are interested in arguments for the existence of God then refer to this link.
I call the present argument “The Argument from Moral Consistency”:
- If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist
- From 1, it is internally consistent to claim “People should believe that God exists.”
- From 1, it is internally contradictory to claim “People should not believe that God exists.”
- That is, if God does not exist then 3 cannot be considered an objective moral truth.
- Therefore, belief in God is rationally preferred.
This argument is importantly different from The Moral Argument, which identifies the existence of God as evidenced by the existence of objective moral principles.