is infinitely more, for we are not satisfied with the finite and partial. Perhaps we cannot hope that happiness will be the Color of Water properly proportioned to virtue in the actual world if God does not exist, but then our obligation can only be to realize as much happiness as can be attained through moral means. But reason can at least let us know that "someone did." And that is of great value. One easily understandable version of a theistic moral argument relies on an analogy between human laws promulgated by nation-states and moral laws. In other words, as something supernatural, it takes the existence of some kind of a God to make the mathematical underpinnings of the universe comprehensible. The Moral Argument, the fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence.
He no more obeys a higher law that binds him, than he creates the law as an artifact that could change and could well have been different, like a planet. For instance, we can know that all the books on this shelf are red only by looking at each one and counting them. Socrates refuted the Divine Command Theory pretty conclusively in Plato's Euthyphro. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time.
Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. Since the actual parts are spread out over space and time, the only way they can be together at once as an intelligible unity is within an idea. If naturalism is true, Lewis argued, then it seems to leave us with no reason for believing it to be true; for all judgments would equally and ultimately be the result of nonrational forces. Were you frightened by one when you were small?" But we never ask, "Why do you think black dogs aren't out to kill you? Many years ago, at an otherwise dull convention, a distinguished philosopher explained why he had become a Christian. So the first premise stands. For many have not been blessed in that way. Reply: No, we do not argue from the idea alone, as Anselm does. Suppose you deny the first premise. Kierkegaard's sharp contrast between "the ethical" and "the religious especially in Fear and Trembling, may lead to such a supposition.