C.S. Lewis's Moral Argument for the Existence of God

In Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, he gives us an equation of logical arguments to lead us to believe that there is a God. These are:

Lewis starts by defending this first idea that there is a universal moral law. His reasoning is that without it, any moral disagreement would not make any sense. Why else would everybody consider killing another human being to be wrong or evil. Also if we did not have a universal moral law, any moral judgement would be deemed meaningless. Things like judging if the genocide in Darfur is wrong are not just our personal opinion. If it was, most people would not care about it. Things like genocide are just deemed morally wrong. Also, this universal moral law does not just apply to Christians. This is a very logical argument that does not involve God at this stage.

Lewis then continues to wonder on where this set of laws came from and he arrived at the conclusion that there had to be some sort of giver of these laws. He does admit that there is no evidence in nature of a set of universal laws or a giver of these laws. Whatever supreme giver that created these laws must be supremely powerful, perfectly good,and a supreme being who is interested about our behavior. These add up to the traits of the Christain God.

Some people deny this second idea because it is contraversial and they it is wrong due to "herd instinct" which is something developed by our physical nature. Lewis finds the loop-hole in this argument which is that our strongest natural impulses is not always the correct thing to do. Some people also argue that moral law is decided by society. This is false because therefore people who went against society to improve it like Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X would be immoral people which is just a silly thing to think because of how wrong it is.

What I find to be extremely interesting is that Lweis never sites a historical source at all. He only uses the actions of Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., and Hitler to prove his point.

I do agree with this argument because of how extremely logical it is. The entire basis is on reason and observation of how people act. To me, he does give another proof of the existence of God. What is unique is hoe carefully his argument is organized and how he has an answer to any challange of his argument. That is truly a great argument. It is a very good argument and it is very persuasive.