CMV: The most popular justification for religion is the argument from morality, but this means that religion isn't actually the source of our morals, it's really the other way around.

Religious people use this justification a lot: "Without God, there can be no objective source of morality." It doesn't matter if you believe in God, this is simply the way that the world works. <br>If there's no God, then there's no objective source of morality. The fact that most people think that murder and rape are wrong prove that there is a God in heaven. The fact that we react with horror at atrocities and become depressed at cruelties proves that we are hardwired to behave this way. <br>There is this idea that if there's no God, then we are free to do whatever and that our consciences are useless. If there's no God and our consciences are useless, then we are allowed to do whatever. <br>However, the fact that almost everyone assumes that there is an objective source of morality proves that there must be a God. <br>But if everybody is hardwired to believe that certain things are right or wrong, then God isn't the source of our morals; rather, our consciences are the source of our morals. It's the other way around. <br>Look at it this way: <br>If our consciences didn't tell us that rape and murder are wrong, then they would be totally moral. <br>This is different than saying, "Identify and punish those who rape and murder, because they harm the community." The conscience says, 'rape and murder are always wrong.' <br>But 'always wrong' is only meaningful if we have an idea of what 'always wrong' even means. <br>The fact that we even have an idea of a final, objective source of morals proves that there is a God in heaven. <br>There is a difference between "don't rape and murder, because it's harmful to the community" and "don't rape and murder, because it is wrong." <br>If we didn't even have an idea of 'wrong,' then in effect, there would be no reason not to rape and murder. <br>If our consciences don't tell us that rape and murder is wrong, then it is totally moral. <br>If we have an idea of 'wrong,' then we have to have a source of 'wrong.' If we don't have an idea of 'wrong,' then we don't have to have a source of 'wrong.' But we do have an idea of 'wrong'. <br>But if our consciences already know that rape and murder is wrong, then that is where our morals actually come from. That is where our idea of right and wrong comes from. Not from God Himself, but from our consciences.<br><br>---<br><br>The tl;dr is that if we didn't have an idea of right and wrong, then it's totally moral to do whatever we want. But we do have an idea of right and wrong. Therefore, God exists. But if our consciences are the source of our idea of right and wrong, then that is the source of our morals. If we didn't have an idea of right and wrong, then there is no reason to behave morally. But we do have such an idea of right and wrong. Therefore, God exists. But our consciences are the source of this idea, and our consciences are the source of our morals.<br><br>---<br>By the way, I thought up this moral argument on my own, and I have never heard of it before. I came to the opposing conclusion on my own. If you've heard this argument before, then please inform me so that I can give this argument its proper name.