According to some if she were to be looking for some meaning than she would not be just believing. There is a wide circle of people who will say if you believe, there is no need for proof. If there is no need for proof, then there is no need for any scientific or philosophical reasoning . That would include the need to find the reason for ones existence. Cynics out there will say what is the point to continue looking for a reason when they are well aware that they will never find a satisfactory reason in their lifetimes. And do those people wanting to give up on the hunt just have to be cynics? That is also a question to be answered.

Some people are comforted by having tokens of their spirituality around with them that remind us of the idolatry we were swept into years before organized religion took off. Some find solace in the crystals they carry saying that they are the embodiment of friendly spirits that are there to guide them. Others relate that to the occult and stay clear of anything that they are not advised to believe in. Maybe of they beieved in themselves there would less anxiety in finding an external solution.

There must be many people out who have dual natures. I believe a psychological term this reminds people of this is dual personality and I think that this is often confused with a split personality where a person has a limited sense of his other self or no sense at all. It is natural for people to exhibit different sides of their personality especially when under stress and asked to perform under extreme circumstances. This does not define the person as being outside himself or acting as another person which are attributes with a split or multiple personality. In the above case the person could very well be happy to have a private and public image as do so many other religious people needing to get through their day to day existence.

Going to places like Guyana in the late eighties and finding spiritual leaders that will ask you to take your lives in the name of a common good is to be avoided. Naturally there will always be people who will be swept aware by those that are so full of being ’superior’ to the average person that they fail to see their inferiorty. No one has the right to subjugate another human being in the name of one holiness or another.

Facts show what the world really is. It is a fact that predator go after their prey and not the other way around. It is a fact that Beijing is the capital of China, because there is such a city that is the capital of China. And for the majority of the facts, the objects are there to render them factual.

But moral laws are not facts. They do not have physical characteristics that can be observed to make them true. It is because moral laws are not descriptive but prescriptive; they are made up of commands. And since moral laws have the form of commands, they tell us what ought to be done.

If they are commands, there has to be a commander. A command cannot exist without a commander. And since moral laws are commands, the question comes, “who is it that commands us to act morally?” or “who commands morality?” To respond to this question, the moral argument proposes that we evaluate the importance of morality.

Morality is of prime value in the world we live in. If we are morally obligated to do something, this would essentially take precedence over any other factors coming into play. If one is motivated to get a thing done but morally ought to get some other thing done, then he should be doing the other thing after all factors are taken into consideration. To cite an example: it might be in my interest not to aid someone in need, but morally I should when all things have been taken into account. Morality overrides everything else; it is essentially authoritative.

Commands are only as authoritative as the commanding person. If I were to command everybody to pay additional tax for the purpose of building public roads and highways, nobody would be obligated to obey me. However, if the state imposed the tax, it would be a totally different story, since it does have the authority to do so. So it is with morality.

As morality has definitely more influence than any individual or institution over our actions, the moral argument argues, moral laws could not have been commanded by any individual or institution. As morality supersedes everything else, it must have been commanded by a being who exercises authority over all things. The existence of morality therefore directs us to someone far more superior than we are and who reigns over all creation.

Mankind has a virtuous nature. They seem to have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. There is a general belief that we will one day all be held accountable for who we are and what we do. The Creator of our moral nature mustbe a higher, moral Being who is aware of good and evil, and who rewards the good and penalizes evil. Of course, that Being is God who inspires holiness in those created in His image. As the Holy Scripture states, “He is glorious in holiness” (Exodus 15:11). And according to the late reformed Baptist preacher Ferrell Griswold, “Holiness belongs to God originally. He is the source and fountain of all holiness. Any holiness seen in the creature is from Him. Holiness belongs to God underivatively. It being original with Him is derived from no one, or thing. Even when God dwelt alone He was the great Holy One. Holiness belongs unto God perfectly. All holiness that is within the creature has a flaw, but in God it is infinitely perfect, with nothing being added unto it. Holiness belongs to God immutably. He always has been, He ever will be the Holy One.”

Based on this argument, there could be no morality apart from God. A quotation ascribed to the famous 19th century Russian author Feodor Dostoevsky states, “If there is no God, then all things are permissible.” And the fact that moral law exists, then not all things are permissible, attest to the existence of God.