One of the things that has been argued the most throughout the dawn of time is morality. To be more specific, the argument revolves more around how morality is judged or what makes something moral. As humans, some of the decisions that are made based on what they think is morally right or morally wrong. but the foundation on which this assertion is based is ambiguous; however, the existence of god is not necessary in order for something to be deemed as moral, unmoral or objectively true. Objectively true statements in regard to morality can be true regardless of whether God deems something right or wrong and that is because, we as sentient beings have our own interpretations of what is right and what is wrong which are entirely based on human experience. This topic will be examined through the use of, Dr. William Lane Craig's "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality", and Louise Antony's "Good Minus God". …show more content…
The assessment of whether something is moral is based on objectivity or an objective truth. However, in his article, "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality” Dr. William Lane Craig basically argues that, if god exists, then objective truths and moral principles can legitimately be true, but if god does not exist, they cannot be true. He says this because he believes that without a god deciding what is truly good or bad, that there is no standard to which objective truths and morals can be compared to and judged by. He also believes that without god nothing can be objectively true or moral and that all things humans believe are objectively true and moral are actually things they personally feel are right therefore being