The Jeff Bogdan Variation of the Transcendental Proof of God (The Moral + TAG Proof)

I recently proved God. It goes like this:

1. "Speak the truth" is metaphysically certain.

This is certain through experience. If you speak the truth as you understand it all the time, then you understand its eternal righteousness. It is not only right because it is skillful, but right because it is true. Truth is true.

2. If "Speak the truth" is an eternal law, there must be an eternal lawmaker.

Otherwise, why would that be the case? It is an action, it is a reality, and it is eternal, so there needs to be some agent.

3. That eternal lawmaker is God.

Or whatever else you'd like to call such an eternal lawmaker. It turns out this argument has already been formulated, and is called the Argument From Morality. The objection to it is that it "means that no objective morality could exist without God." However, the people using this refutation confuse subject and object. It does not mean a person cannot be moral without believing in God. A person can easily be moral without believing in God. However, it is true that no objective morality could exist without God as lawmaker. That is certain. A person actually sees God when they are acting from a place of absolute moral certainty, even if they don't know of God's Pneuma.

There is also the possibility that an eternal law exists based on nothing other than the usefulness of the law. This would lead to the result that future lives and past lives are necessary. So actually, the proof of God is not so complete if past and future lives are taken into consideration.