My Version of the "Moral Argument for God":
(I have derived the following arguments after studying C.S. Lewis', Norman Geisler's, and Victor Reppert's arguments, and I want to give credit where credit is due)
First of all, if Materialism/Naturalism is true (where only the physical Universe exists with no Personal Being that created it), and everything is the result of time, mindless physical laws, and blind chance, then there is no objective good and evil. There is no objective right and wrong. There are only subjective opinions and feelings of individuals. Each person has their own views on what is right and what is wrong, and what is good and what is evil. And, on what basis could an Atheist claim that someone else was wrong in their moral views?
But, when Atheists/Materialists/Naturalists make the claim that the existence of evil proves there is no God, are they not claiming to know that there is objective evil (or imperfection) in this world? And how can they know what is evil (or imperfect), unless there is an ultimate objective good (or perfection) that they are measuring things against? And how can there possibly be an ultimate objective Moral Law to measure against, unless there is an Ultimate Law-Giver?
What basis does an Atheist have for claiming that anything is "good" or "evil"?
When Atheists use the "Argument from Evil", what do they actually mean by "evil"?
If Atheists do not believe that there is any ultimate objective good or evil, then any "evil" that the Atheist speaks of must simply be his or her own personal subjective opinion or feeling.
If Naturalism/Materialism is true, then that means there is no objective basis for saying that slavery, genocide, rape, murder, child molestation, or the Watchtower Society, is wrong or evil.
Why shouldn't people go out and do anything they want to do, if Naturalism is true? Why shouldn't the strong and powerful abuse the weak and the poor? Survival of the fittest, after all, right?
How can you argue that God is acting "unjustly" for allowing "evil," unless you know what is ultimately just, and what is ultimately evil? And how can you possibly know what is ultimately just or unjust if Naturalism is true?
Was the Nazi Holocaust just a matter of opinion? What would be the reaction of 90% of the people in the world if someone said "The Holocaust was a good thing! Those people deserved it!" ?
Your reactions tell you much more about the existence of an objective moral law than do your actions.
For example, people may do all kinds of evil to other people, but how do they react when someone does something unfair to them, or takes away some of their rights? Why do all people react as though they are being treated "UNFAIRLY" if there is no such thing as an objective justice or fairness?
If you were to compare the behavior of Mother Teresa to Adolf Hitler (or, for a modern example, Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden), you would be appealing to an absolute unchanging standard of right and wrong behavior beyond both of them. Otherwise, if Naturalism is true, there is no difference between them. They simply had different beliefs and ideas. Hitler was not evil and Mother Teresa was not good.
The minute that you claim that one set of morals (the US Constitution, for example) is better than another set of morals (the Nazis' worldview, for example), you are, in fact, measuring both sets of morals by some kind of standard, saying that one of them conforms more closely to the standard than the other one does. But, this "Standard" must be something separate from the two sets of morals that you are comparing.
If there is no objective Moral Law, then there is no moral difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler. Also, to claim that "genocide is wrong," "rape is wrong," "women should have the right to an abortion," or "racism is immoral," or "gays should not be persecuted," would have absolutely no real meaning. They would just be the opinions of certain individuals, and why should anyone ELSE be obligated to follow YOUR personal, subjective feelings and opinions?
If Naturalism is true, no one would have any moral obligation to follow anyone else's morals, they could choose to follow their own morals, or to follow no morals at all. The whole world could be filled with people like Hitler and the Joker (Heath Ledger version), and no one would have any objective basis to say that these people are wrong.
Several times in the past, I have also seen Atheists say "If there is a Good God, He should put an end to evil right now. Why doesn't He put an end to evil? God would be unjust to allow all of this evil." But then, they turn around and accuse God of being "unjust" or "barbaric" because He DID put an end to evil people in the Old Testament!
So which is it? Is God unjust because He DOESN'T put an end to evil people, or because He DOES put an end to evil people? And what objective basis do you have for claiming that the God of the Old Testament is "unjust" or "unfair"?
Also, if you really think about it, are you so sure that you want God to put an end to all evil people right now? What if He started with you? The Bible says each and every one of us are sinners in His eyes. There is no difference. All have sinned and fall short of God's glorious standard.
The Bible says that the reason why there is evil is this:
1:) God created angels and humans with free will, so that they could freely choose to either love Him and obey Him, or rebel against Him and face the consequences.
2:) An angel and two humans rebelled against God, and God punished them and cursed the earth (along with all of creation), and all humans are sinful because they inherited a sinful nature from the first two human sinners.
3:) Natural disasters, sicknesses, and the deaths of animals are the results of the curse God put on all creation, in addition to the evils that are caused by other humans (and the fallen angel).
4:) And one day, Jesus will return and put an end to all evil, including suffering and death.
As Victor Reppert said:
"Objects in a naturalistic world are not supposed to have moral properties. That is ruled out by any reasonable definition of naturalism. Particle arrangements are just not going to get you there."