The existence of God can be explained in terms of moral arguments. Men assume that they can recognize goodness when they see it, and yet when God's own Son came to earth, he was misunderstood, maligned, and finally killed. It is easy, of course, to say that unusually wicked men did this, but the New Testament lays the blame on ordinary people doing for the most part what they thought was right. The arguments from moral order suggest that moral order and rationality exists so the God exists, and we cannot deny His existence. Argument V states that: “Morality is a rational enterprise. … Only the existence of God traditionally conceived could support the hypothesis that there is a moral order in the world” (Byme 2009).
Following the argument of moral enterprise, it is possible to say that moral reason with the nature of all things and thus ultimately with God, they argued that since man already possesses reason, he need not investigate the outside world to find God but, rather, needs to turn to the introspection of his own mind. We know God in much the same way that we recognize axiomatic truth. If one does not believe, for example, that quantities equal to the same quantity are always equal to each other, it would be impossible to prove it to him. Any number of particular cases bearing it out could be cited, but one cannot formulate a universal truth absolutely true from a number of particular cases (Miller and Jensen 2003). This proposition is simply "self-evident." Ultimately all our reasoning depends upon some such directly known truth for its validity. The true God, in other words, cannot be thought of as nonexistent. The answer is that it points to the dual relation of immanence and transcendence, for God could not be known to us at all were He not in some degree immanent; and on the other hand, the fact that our thought about Him is so elusive, that it gives us only a bare "that He is" and not a complete "Who He is," indicates His transcendence. We have been examining the relation of God to the world implied in the Christian doctrine of creation. This is a much wider subject than the mere beginning of the world, the sort of thing investigated by physics, paleontology, and astronomy, but it must bear relation to the knowledge obtained through these scientific disciplines.
In terms of moral arguments, it is possible to claim that faith then is opposed to human pride. Pride asserts its own status before God. Faith admits that it has, and can acquire, no such status. But at times this teaching has been called immoral because in refusing to state requirements for the approach to God it is said to discourage moral earnestness (Miller and Jensen 2003). To the extent that one's concern with morality is only with its outward appearances, this may be so. But to the extent that one is concerned with what is fundamental to true morality the right relation between a man and his God, apart from which nothing can be right--to this extent the objection misses its point. When a person regardless of his adherence to, or deviation from, conventional morality recognizes his true relation to God, then for the first time he is confronted with reality and is responding validly to it. It is from this position of humble dependence, of accepting forgiveness that the Christian life begins.
The basis of our daily action is no longer a false meaning of life, but the true one. Such a radically new orientation is bound to have pervasive effects. They represent God's judgment on an evil society. In other words, these evils do not prevail in spite of God: they prevail in a sense because of God. It is because of God's moral ordering of the universe that any attempt of men to live apart from Him leads to such chaos and disintegration of human society. The reason is that no man has the moral preeminence to judge absolutely what is right and what is wrong. The judge himself is corrupted so that his pronouncements are prejudiced and he has no way of evaluating his judgments. Consequently, his very attempt to establish perfection develops into a new form of evil. A nation, for example, that is overzealous to eradicate a particular form of evil is apt to develop into a police state, or an individual who overcomes gross immorality is likely to become unlovely through spiritual pride. What this approach to the problem actually does is build more impregnable walls of hatred and mistrust dividing men from each other, and by misrepresenting the truth of the human situation it blocks off through false pride the only possible source of external help-God. The second, the way of education, is the idea that if people can be directed to live properly, the evils of which we speak will, in due time, take care of themselves. This simply begs the question of what final standard is to be the goal of an educational program. Moralists assume that they have such a standard, that were the whole world remade according to their hearts' desire it would be a world of peace and justice. They could be made righteous only by treating them as if they were righteous, by breaking the chain of evil that held them in bondage (Miller and Jensen 2003). This God did in the free forgiveness offered through Christ, a forgiveness which men can accept only as they are willing to admit the uselessness of their own attempts to set things right. The rulers of this world understood the situation they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, implying that they did not grasp the reality of the situation (Miller and Jensen 2003).
In sum, God exists because we cannot deny existence of moral enterprise and moral order. In other words, when we come to trust God, accepting our limitations and our responsibilities, we are free to develop life on a sound foundation, or rather, we are free to live guided by a new principle. Only in this restored relationship can the human problem be worked out. It is when philosophers consider what follows on justification that the charge of immorality against such teaching is countered by a new and positive emphasis. The relationship to God in faith puts all of life on an entirely different basis.