The following is a question I submitted to professional theologian William Lane Craig through his website www.reasonablefaith.org. The question pertains to Craig's persistent use of the Moral Argument for the existence of god despite the fact that this argument has been shown to fail on multiple levels. Here I attempt to show one more flaw in the Moral Argument. If Dr. Craig responds to my question, I will be sure to post his response below.
One chief component of The Moral Argument for the existence of God is that there must be objective value assigned to human life in order for objective moral values to exist. Such objective value can only come from God.
The value of something, from an economic perspective, is the price that an individual is willing to pay for something. Essentially, that which someone is willing to give up for something else. For instance, the value of a Kobe steak, to me, is $90—that is, I would be willing to give up ninety of my dollars in exchange for a Kobe steak, but not ninety-one of my dollars. Or, the value of staying out too late with co-workers at a bar on a Wednesday night for a married man may be one hour of the silent treatment from his wife—that is, he would be willing to stay out too late if the cost of doing so was that his wife would not talk to him for an hour, but not if she refused to talk to him for a week. (Granted, for some married men this would be a benefit, not a cost!)
God is the perfect creator of the universe. Perfect, meaning that God cannot possibly improve and cannot lack anything.
If value is what we are willing to go without in exchange for something else and God cannot go without anything, how, then, could God assign value to anything?
It seems to me that the ability to assign value requires the willingness to go without something. God cannot be without anything. Therefore, the ability to assign value could not be possessed by God, much like the ability to sin or the ability to be wrong could not be possessed by God.