Arguments from Morality for the Existence of God

[Im_A]

i found this site.
http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html

it's about C.S. Lewis's argume from morality for the existence of God. the site goes about it more in depth, but here's the three basic components:

1. There is a universal moral law.
2. If there is a universal moral law, then there must be a universal moral lawgiver.
   Therefore,
3. There must be God.

seems simple enough. but something is sitting right with me about this. here are some reasonings.

number one is a problem to me. an example i'll give for the moment is the scriptures. please note, this is not some attempt to disprove God, or the validity of the scriptures by any means.

in the scriptures we can see numerous of verses stating that God told these individuals to do things that our modern mentality would never conceive a holy being (human or not) to do. here are some verses for mere references (Judges 11:29-40, 2 Kings 23:20-25, Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:7-11, Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 2 Samuel 12:11-14, Deuteronomy 17:12, Deuteronomy 22:20-21). it would take long to quote all these verses, so if anyone wants to read what these verses, check out their bible, of if you don't have one, go to www.bible.com and type the scriptures in(the site is pretty self explanatory and it may more applicable to take the time to read these verses for serious discussion.)

the point here is, if the Abrahamic religion was to start off this universal moral law, or if this universal moral law was started by the religions before what Abraham started, we would need to see a constant belief in what we see in the law, and the testament of the Jewish people before Christ came on to this earth. (i'm bringing up the ancient faiths, cause looking at it on an evolutionary process, we see these pagans, the ancient Jews, as giving us the first sign of Enlightenment). meaning no progression, no evolution of thought of morality. no social liberation, nothing. the standard would stay the same. we can also find pagan religions expressing similiar sentiments as described in those verses if we look hard enough.

so we have this law, this universal moral code, of what to be done, punishment for doing this and that, and the list goes on. but if one is believe in Christianity, as Lewis says he does (and i believe he does personally, i have no reason to question his faith) we have the addition of the New Testament. literature that seems to be progression away from these things. thus turning those "universal moral laws" into relative moral laws. at the time that the Jewish people were under the control and rule of the Roman Empire, we see another enlightenment coming along from the social implications. we see this change when Jesus said to the men getting ready to stone the adulterer, "Let those of you with no sin cast the first stone." (please note this is not some pro-Christianity post of mine. i'm just bringing in these scenarios because Lewis is a Christian and his argument, i assume is coming from a Christian standpoint, thus the talk of the scriptures that are important to our faith needs to be addressed, in my opinion at least.)

the point is, morality is relative. looking at it from a non-Christian pov, where is the universal moral law when we can say for example, Hitler was wrong for genocide/ethnic cleansing, but yet for some it is ok that Bush is going after fundamentlist Islamic terrorists? please note, i'm not trying to say Bush is like Hitler. that is such an unfair judgement/comparision and one i will never make. but what makes Hitler's actions wrong/evil, over Bush, when similiar things are happening...people are being killed for an idea, people are being tortured. if one states that they are the same, then i could see a universal moral law there, but if one can justify how Bush's actions are not as wrong, or not at all wrong then let's say Hitler's actions in WWII, we have nothing but a relative moral law.

the only way i could see this even conceivable is if it can be proven that the highest good is the ultimate moral law. but as we see the history of religion progress, the highest good was for the praising of God and the glory of God. there was no individualistic sense, or humanistic sense, or one acting non-hypocritically, ie Christ standing up for the adulterer/prostitute that was about to be stoned, what seems a very humanistic/social liberating act from Christ. for we see even more quotes of Christ really progressing/stretching the former beliefs. the parable of if you want to take the plank out of your brother's eye, take the plank out of your own eye first, and if such an idea was lived out beforehand, would we have all those verses that i referenced above stating all that they state? so what is that highest good? communion with God? the more we give rights to the non-believers, to the sinners, the more the communion with God is threatened, at least if the Old Testament is used as the example. thus the highest good is not to be in communion with God anymore at this point. unless one can accept the transition that Christ has put on us, the highest good is not to be in communion with God anymore but to give human rights and freedom and social liberation. which these things seem to be the basis of further enlightenment, ie the humanistic protestant reformation, then to the enlightenment era. all things further from this pre-set universal moral law.

the rest of Lewis's argument collapses if point one can't be proven, in my opinion. i'm not out to really prove Lewis wrong, cause it'd be an unfair thing for me to rant on and on cause Lewis is dead, and i respect the positive effect he's had upon Christianity. it's just this argument to explain the existence of God, doesn't seem to be anything new or something strictly of C.S. Lewis's mind. even if point one can be proven, i don't know if it would conclude the proof for God's existence, but it would give room to speculate more ideas with, but point number one is the hardest to get past for me, thus at this point leading me to see it as proving nothing and rejectable as any proof for the existence of God. i hope my example didn't detere off the discussion i've started, or the topic. it's just a mere example of the reason why i can't say i believe in this argument for the existance of God.

(please forgive me for a long post. just had to cover many areas...even if i was being redundant at times.)

any other thoughts either for or against this argument for the existence of God?

 

[The Nihilist]

Yeah, Lewis is basically stupid.
As Kierkegaard has done me the service of pointing out, a Christian cannot believe in a universal moral law. If a universal moral law did exist, God would have rejected Abraham after Abraham had been willing to murder his own son for God.

 

[Species8472]

i found this site.
http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html

it's about C.S. Lewis's argume from morality for the existence of God. the site goes about it more in depth, but here's the three basic components:



seems simple enough. but something is sitting right with me about this. here are some reasonings.

number one is a problem to me. an example i'll give for the moment is the scriptures. please note, this is not some attempt to disprove God, or the validity of the scriptures by any means.

in the scriptures we can see numerous of verses stating that God told these individuals to do things that our modern mentality would never conceive a holy being (human or not) to do. here are some verses for mere references (Judges 11:29-40, 2 Kings 23:20-25, Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:7-11, Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 2 Samuel 12:11-14, Deuteronomy 17:12, Deuteronomy 22:20-21). it would take long to quote all these verses, so if anyone wants to read what these verses, check out their bible, of if you don't have one, go to www.bible.com and type the scriptures in(the site is pretty self explanatory and it may more applicable to take the time to read these verses for serious discussion.)

the point here is, if the Abrahamic religion was to start off this universal moral law, or if this universal moral law was started by the religions before what Abraham started, we would need to see a constant belief in what we see in the law, and the testament of the Jewish people before Christ came on to this earth. (i'm bringing up the ancient faiths, cause looking at it on an evolutionary process, we see these pagans, the ancient Jews, as giving us the first sign of Enlightenment). meaning no progression, no evolution of thought of morality. no social liberation, nothing. the standard would stay the same. we can also find pagan religions expressing similiar sentiments as described in those verses if we look hard enough.

so we have this law, this universal moral code, of what to be done, punishment for doing this and that, and the list goes on. but if one is believe in Christianity, as Lewis says he does (and i believe he does personally, i have no reason to question his faith) we have the addition of the New Testament. literature that seems to be progression away from these things. thus turning those "universal moral laws" into relative moral laws. at the time that the Jewish people were under the control and rule of the Roman Empire, we see another enlightenment coming along from the social implications. we see this change when Jesus said to the men getting ready to stone the adulterer, "Let those of you with no sin cast the first stone." (please note this is not some pro-Christianity post of mine. i'm just bringing in these scenarios because Lewis is a Christian and his argument, i assume is coming from a Christian standpoint, thus the talk of the scriptures that are important to our faith needs to be addressed, in my opinion at least.)

the point is, morality is relative. looking at it from a non-Christian pov, where is the universal moral law when we can say for example, Hitler was wrong for genocide/ethnic cleansing, but yet for some it is ok that Bush is going after fundamentlist Islamic terrorists? please note, i'm not trying to say Bush is like Hitler. that is such an unfair judgement/comparision and one i will never make. but what makes Hitler's actions wrong/evil, over Bush, when similiar things are happening...people are being killed for an idea, people are being tortured. if one states that they are the same, then i could see a universal moral law there, but if one can justify how Bush's actions are not as wrong, or not at all wrong then let's say Hitler's actions in WWII, we have nothing but a relative moral law.

the only way i could see this even conceivable is if it can be proven that the highest good is the ultimate moral law. but as we see the history of religion progress, the highest good was for the praising of God and the glory of God. there was no individualistic sense, or humanistic sense, or one acting non-hypocritically, ie Christ standing up for the adulterer/prostitute that was about to be stoned, what seems a very humanistic/social liberating act from Christ. for we see even more quotes of Christ really progressing/stretching the former beliefs. the parable of if you want to take the plank out of your brother's eye, take the plank out of your own eye first, and if such an idea was lived out beforehand, would we have all those verses that i referenced above stating all that they state? so what is that highest good? communion with God? the more we give rights to the non-believers, to the sinners, the more the communion with God is threatened, at least if the Old Testament is used as the example. thus the highest good is not to be in communion with God anymore at this point. unless one can accept the transition that Christ has put on us, the highest good is not to be in communion with God anymore but to give human rights and freedom and social liberation. which these things seem to be the basis of further enlightenment, ie the humanistic protestant reformation, then to the enlightenment era. all things further from this pre-set universal moral law.

the rest of Lewis's argument collapses if point one can't be proven, in my opinion. i'm not out to really prove Lewis wrong, cause it'd be an unfair thing for me to rant on and on cause Lewis is dead, and i respect the positive effect he's had upon Christianity. it's just this argument to explain the existence of God, doesn't seem to be anything new or something strictly of C.S. Lewis's mind. even if point one can be proven, i don't know if it would conclude the proof for God's existence, but it would give room to speculate more ideas with, but point number one is the hardest to get past for me, thus at this point leading me to see it as proving nothing and rejectable as any proof for the existence of God. i hope my example didn't detere off the discussion i've started, or the topic. it's just a mere example of the reason why i can't say i believe in this argument for the existance of God.

(please forgive me for a long post. just had to cover many areas...even if i was being redundant at times.)

any other thoughts either for or against this argument for the existence of God?

All I can say on the matter is that the old testament was written by prophets; and as being such, they as men, were not perfect in God; therefore it appears that God had ordered such things that we would consider un-godly compared to Christ.
The old and new testament are derived from the poetic genius--the outpouring of the soul. What Christ set out to do was to fullfill the prophecies that had been established by the prophets--of how God is to assume the form of man(this is evident even in genesis, where God says, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...And it turns out that the prophecies have come to pass as fullfilled--now that it is evident that over a billion people are in agreement.
If there is such a thing as a moral law-giver (God) then it would be safe to assume that a tree does not immediately become a tree; but it has to germinate first where the soil must be prepared. if you can imagine.
Jesus Christ is the moral law-giver. Gods judgement and moral code has already been established in the new and Everlasting covenant.

 

[The Nihilist]

All I can say on the matter is that the old testament was written by prophets; and as being such, they as men, were not perfect in God; therefore it appears that God had ordered such things that we would consider un-godly compared to Christ.
The old and new testament are derived from the poetic genius--the outpouring of the soul. What Christ set out to do was to fullfill the prophecies that had been established by the prophets--of how God is to assume the form of man(this is evident even in genesis, where God says, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...And it turns out that the prophecies have come to pass as fullfilled--now that it is evident that over a billion people are in agreement.
If there is such a thing as a moral law-giver (God) then it would be safe to assume that a tree does not immediately become a tree; but it has to germinate first where the soil must be prepared. if you can imagine.
Jesus Christ is the moral law-giver. Gods judgement and moral code has already been established in the new and Everlasting covenant.

I think you just said the Bible was wrong. I am not sure if you are allowed to do that.

 

[Species8472]

I think you just said the Bible was wrong. I am not sure if you are allowed to do that.

maybe I didn't say the bible was wrong. Maybe I'm just speaking from my point of view.

 

[quatona]

I don´t accept the premise.

 

[Norseman]

maybe I didn't say the bible was wrong. Maybe I'm just speaking from my point of view.

And your point of view is that the Bible is wrong?

 

[The Nihilist]

Yeah, I think the conflicts in the Bible are waved away because the Bible is written by men who were not perfect in God. If this isn't saying that the Bible is wrong, then I don't know what is.

 

[David Gould]

I do not agree with the first premise.

It would also need to be demonstrated that a law requires a lawgiver. I am not sure how this premise was arrived at, other than through a simplistic look at lawbooks.

 

[Marz Blak]

Lost me at 1, but even given that, it is difficult to see how 2 must necessarily follow from 1, or how 3 does anything to define this God-concept, or especially to get to the sort of God-concept we know Lewis had.

Anyway, I agree with previous posters. I don't understand why people think Lewis was a good apologist. All his arguments that I have seen are first and foremost just plain facile, but also built using unsupported assertions and employing logical fallacies of numerous sorts.

 

[[serious]]

This is flat out bad logic. If there is moral law, and a moral lawgiver, what defines the law giver as moral?
If the law in moral by virtue of the lawgiver, that morality is arbitrary. If the law giver is moral by virtue of the law, morality is still arbitrary. Things must be right or wrong apart from the law giver for the law giver to be right or wrong.

 

[Stinker]

I wonder, why do serial killers go after people who are not close relatives or members of their immediate families?

Why does every society in the world recognize that to steal fom others 'might' be ok, but never ok to be stole from?



Yes, the Old Testament tells of moral lapses such as a host offering up his guest's concubine along with his own daughter, to the wicked men of Gibeah. However, the guest eventually seized the Levite's concubine and handed her over to those wicked men where they raped and committed other horrible acts against her...all night, (Genesis 19:22-26)

Notice what the Levite's attitude was towards her the next morning, it is shocking. (Genesis 19:27-30)


It is very difficult for us today to see where Old Testament incidents such as this and others could be allowed to happen as examples for later generations.

"For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encourgement of the scriptures we might have hope." (Rom. 15:4)

This is all that we can say about the moral atrocities that are written in the Old Testament.

 

[The Nihilist]

"For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encourgement of the scriptures we might have hope." (Rom. 15:4)

This is all that we can say about the moral atrocities that are written in the Old Testament.

This is clearly insufficient, though, because ostensibly, the events told in the OT were not merely written down, but actually happened.

 

[Im_A]

I wonder, why do serial killers go after people who are not close relatives or members of their immediate families?

Why does every society in the world recognize that to steal fom others 'might' be ok, but never ok to be stole from?



Yes, the Old Testament tells of moral lapses such as a host offering up his guest's concubine along with his own daughter, to the wicked men of Gibeah. However, the guest eventually seized the Levite's concubine and handed her over to those wicked men where they raped and committed other horrible acts against her...all night, (Genesis 19:22-26)

Notice what the Levite's attitude was towards her the next morning, it is shocking. (Genesis 19:27-30)


It is very difficult for us today to see where Old Testament incidents such as this and others could be allowed to happen as examples for later generations.

"For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encourgement of the scriptures we might have hope." (Rom. 15:4)

This is all that we can say about the moral atrocities that are written in the Old Testament.

forgive me if i didn't make that point clear with my use of the Old Testament. my intent wasn't to make it sound like autrocities.

my only point was, those are considered autrocities today. and to add to it, back then it wasn't the case, thus the point that i don't see any reason to believe in universal moral code in terms of Christian ideas.

and to add this, the verses Paul spoke that a sin for one brother may not be a sin for another brother, so do not burden your brother. if a brother in the faith can do something that i can't, i see no universal moral code.

i apologize if i didn't fully explain that point stinker.

God Bless you!

 

[Lucretius]

I'm going to use my knowledge from my Logical Thinking class to analyze the argument.

Argument follows standard Modus Ponens form:

If P then Q,
P,
Therefore Q

Now, in order for an argument to be considered a sound one, it must both be valid (which, because it follows modus ponens, it is) and both the premises must be true.

Problem with this argument lies then in the premise, specifically what I have signified with P. The premise is totally unjustified, making the entire argument unsound.

 

[Lifesaver]

A "morality argument" for the existence of God can possibly be valid and acceptable, but to be so it must steer clear of the divine voluntarism (an action is wrong because God says it is; if tomorrow He said drinking water is wrong, it would be wrong) which has dominated Christian (especially protestant) thought in the last centuries and must go back to the Thomistic concept of natural law (which means those moral precepts which any man can know from the use of his reason reflecting on the reality of things, without the need of any divine revelation).

We are all human beings. That means we share something in common: we are all animals, and on top of that, we are rational animals.

Now, in order to talk about propositions which are true and false, we must accept, a priori, some principles which are objective and universal, without which it would be impossible to even discuss the truthness or falsity of anything. These are the principles of logic; for instance, the principle of non-contradiction.
The principle of non-contradiction cannot be proved; the person either accepts it or doesn't. If he doesn't, not even the most basic things which we consider true (1+1=2, or "something exists") will be acceptable to him.

With moral discussions, discussions about right or wrong behaviours and actions, the same thing happens. It is possible to speak objectively about morality, but in order to do so we must accept, a priori, some ethical principles. The main ethical principles are that "good is to be pursued and evil is to be avoided" and that "to be is better than not to be".
From this, and taking into account that man is a rational being, we conclude that for man those things are better which allow him to be what it is most fully, that is, to "flourish" as a human individual; to act in the most rational way towards his happiness. These conclusions are valid for all men, because they all have equal essences: they are all rational animals.

From these principles it is possible to arrive at many moral conclusions for mankind, which are as universally valid as the knowledge we arrive at from the application of the principles of logic.

Most people indeed accept this rough sketch that I have described above, even if they have never thought of it in those terms. They all agree that it is possible to argue objectively about morality (even if many questions involve so many variables that it is impossible to draw rules of conduct a priori), and that this possibility is grounded on the acceptance of some basic principles applied to the reality of man, rational animal.

Now, in order for all of this to be possible, we must accept that there is some sort of order in the universe. Our intellect finds that the universe, and that man himself, are intelligible (even though even the simplest beings in the universe far surpass the capabilities of our minds to fully comprehend them). Intelligibility, order, is necessarily the product of a mind. Order does not come from nothing, from the absence of order.

Thus, there is a source for all this order of being that makes it possible for us to draw objective moral principles and standards for mankind.
If we can speak of objective morality, then we have accepted this order, this similarity of intelligible essences.
And we CAN in fact speak of objective morality. Therefore, we must accept the existence of the Source of this order.

This Source, this First Cause, this Pure Act of being, or, in other words, Goodness itself (and thus the ultimate standard of all our judgements about moral goodness and badness even if we are unaware of it) is what we call God.

 

[The Nihilist]

Now, in order to talk about propositions which are true and false, we must accept, a priori, some principles which are objective and universal, without which it would be impossible to even discuss the truthness or falsity of anything. These are the principles of logic; for instance, the principle of non-contradiction.
The principle of non-contradiction cannot be proved; the person either accepts it or doesn't. If he doesn't, not even the most basic things which we consider true (1+1=2, or "something exists") will be acceptable to him.

Granted.

With moral discussions, discussions about right or wrong behaviours and actions, the same thing happens. It is possible to speak objectively about morality, but in order to do so we must accept, a priori, some ethical principles. The main ethical principles are that "good is to be pursued and evil is to be avoided" and that "to be is better than not to be".

This is silly. You have already included a moral imperative in your definitions. Explain what this implied "should" means and you will be much further in your work.

From this, and taking into account that man is a rational being, we conclude that for man those things are better which allow him to be what it is most fully, that is, to "flourish" as a human individual; to act in the most rational way towards his happiness. These conclusions are valid for all men, because they all have equal essences: they are all rational animals.

Wrong. You have concluded virtue ethics without giving an argument. This is an assumption which need not be shared, and indeed, many very smart people have rejected virtue ethics as plausible. If you conclude that human flourishing follows from merely the facts that good should be pursued and evil avoided and that man is rational, you're going to have to justify it a little better than that.

From these principles it is possible to arrive at many moral conclusions for mankind, which are as universally valid as the knowledge we arrive at from the application of the principles of logic.

Most people indeed accept this rough sketch that I have described above, even if they have never thought of it in those terms. They all agree that it is possible to argue objectively about morality (even if many questions involve so many variables that it is impossible to draw rules of conduct a priori), and that this possibility is grounded on the acceptance of some basic principles applied to the reality of man, rational animal.

Now, in order for all of this to be possible, we must accept that there is some sort of order in the universe. Our intellect finds that the universe, and that man himself, are intelligible (even though even the simplest beings in the universe far surpass the capabilities of our minds to fully comprehend them). Intelligibility, order, is necessarily the product of a mind. Order does not come from nothing, from the absence of order.

Ahaha, no. You have already established the principle of noncontradiction as one of your premises. This is all that is required for the world to be intelligible. A first cause is not necessary for the principle of noncontradiction.

Thus, there is a source for all this order of being that makes it possible for us to draw objective moral principles and standards for mankind.
If we can speak of objective morality, then we have accepted this order, this similarity of intelligible essences.
And we CAN in fact speak of objective morality. Therefore, we must accept the existence of the Source of this order.

This Source, this First Cause, this Pure Act of being, or, in other words, Goodness itself (and thus the ultimate standard of all our judgements about moral goodness and badness even if we are unaware of it) is what we call God.

You have in no way established that we can speak about objective morality. You're going to have to articulate what exactly it means for humans to flourish, if you're going to stick to your guns on virtue ethics, and you're going to have to give some real, objective evidence for defining flourishing in the way that you do.
Additionally, you have failed to justify the first cause with goodness itself, and furthermore, you have failed to produce a metaphysical explanation for this goodness itself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Most people indeed accept this rough sketch that I have described above, even if they have never thought of it in those terms.

Perhaps this won't surprise you, but I agree with you up till this point.

My only quibble, and it is a small one, is that I would call those ethical principles you mentioned "meta-ethical principles" instead, since they deal with the concepts (such as "good" and "existence") underlying ethical discourse, not giving advice on how to behave.

Unfortunately, we (not just you and me, but others as well) are going to get into problems with agreeing on what an "objective morality" is. If these meta-ethical principles are correct, you may still end up with hypothetical scenarios where ethical principles could change somewhat from culture to culture and historical setting to historical setting. Some people will insist that this means that "relativism" is true. However, I would say that if those ethical principles are appropriate to the time and place, and help people to flourish, they are nevertheless arising from what is objective (i.e. the requirements of human life), and are therefore "grounded".

Intelligibility, order, is necessarily the product of a mind.

Yes, human minds. Existence simply is what it is. Order is the sense we make out of what is, whatever it may happen to be, whatever "universe" we may happen to be in. Since contradictions cannot physically exist to confuse us -- no possible universes with "square circles", and this doesn't require divine intervention -- this is never a problem.

And so the source of this order is what we call... Man.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lifesaver]

Wrong. You have concluded virtue ethics without giving an argument. This is an assumption which need not be shared, and indeed, many very smart people have rejected virtue ethics as plausible. If you conclude that human flourishing follows from merely the facts that good should be pursued and evil avoided and that man is rational, you're going to have to justify it a little better than that.

Oh yes, I haven't shown that step. But that is not my objective here, though I can give a short account: man is a being, and as such it is good for him to remain in existence; he is an animal, and as such it is good for him to preserve the species; he is rational, and thus it is good for him to live according to reason, in society with other men and to know God.

Ahaha, no. You have already established the principle of noncontradiction as one of your premises. This is all that is required for the world to be intelligible. A first cause is not necessary for the principle of noncontradiction.

Not at all. Merely accepting the principle of non-contradiction does not in any way estabilish that the world has any order whatsoever; it could be pure uniniteligible chaotic mess, in which it would be impossible to distinguish between different beings or to speak anything about it.
Surely, if we can accept the principle of non-contradiction, it means that we are ordered according to some principle: a working intellect pressuposes an order of being.
But this order is also not the result of the principle of non-contradiction.

Logical principles do not tell us ANYTHING about how reality is in fact; that is why we need experience, and experimental science, to know reality. If logical principles were enough to know what reality is like, what things exist and what things don't, we wouldn't need natural sciences; we would be able to deduce a priori how the universe is and how it works.

Only by accepting an internal ordering principle in ourselves (and this is called soul) and by accepting that the universe too is ordered, and that our intellect is fit for adequating itself to the order of the universe (and thus can comprehend it) can we discuss moral and ethical matters, that is, can we speak about what kinds of human interactions with reality are right and which are wrong.
When people discuss, say, the war in Iraq, and whether it was right or not for the US government to pursue it, they have (perhaps only implicitly) accepted all of the above.
Someone who did not accept all of the above, when asked about the justice or injustice of the war in Iraq or of any other moral question, could only answer "those concepts are meaningless to me" or perhaps "I like/dislike it".

 

[Lifesaver]

My only quibble, and it is a small one, is that I would call those ethical principles you mentioned "meta-ethical principles" instead, since they deal with the concepts (such as "good" and "existence") underlying ethical discourse, not giving advice on how to behave.

yes, that is possibly a better name for them, since they do not go so far as to prescribe any kind of concrete behaviour.
St. Thomas Aquinas called them the principles of natural law.

Yes, human minds. Existence simply is what it is. Order is the sense we make out of what is, whatever it may happen to be, whatever "universe" we may happen to be in. Since contradictions cannot physically exist to confuse us -- no possible universes with "square circles", and this doesn't require divine intervention -- this is never a problem.

But order is not simply the absence of contradiction.
If our intellect is able to understand what is happening outside, if it is able to look at reality and discern different beings, this is because reality itself is not pure mess.

A nominalist would say that all these distinctions of beings and qualities which we make are the product of our minds. I strongly disagree with that position; we make these distinctions and discern different kinds of being because these differences exist in reality, even though our language is not precise and complex enough to fully represent the real world. And this view allows me to accept natural science, and to accept inferences based on observation, which the nominalist can't possibly make.

Still, the nominalist is still committed to believing in God, for even though he doesn't reach Him through the recognition of the order present in things, he still accepts the existence of things, and this is the most fundamental of all proofs of God: the necessary being, the pure act of existence, basis of the existence of all contingent beings.

And so the source of this order is what we call... Man.

It can't be man, since his very existence and life pressupose this order.
Plus, to suppose that everything we are able to think and say about the world is just the product of our intellect with no corresponding ordering in reality, is to commit oneself to a nominalist position which does not allow many of the most common and inferences of daily life, and also those of the sciences.