Where do we get our moral values from?

Interestingly I had a discussion with a married lady tonight about the topic of moral values as to whether they had objective meaning or were merely dependent on our ability to detect them, understand them, or even believe and affirm in our daily lives. She repeatedly said that our moral values come merely from ourselves and our needs in society on how we ought to do things. In other words, God isn't necessary for justifying of something being right or wrong because we are the standard because we need to help each other to survive. I replied that objective moral values (Values that are independent of ourselves and society and exist whether we believe them or not) are real because of how people react to situations whenever their moral values/rights are violated. I went further in saying that if human beings are the standard (making it subjective) then ultimately one is justified in his/her mind for making certain claims about the world and whether one is right or wrong in doing something. In other words, if I think that murder is right in a certain situation and someone else doesn't, we both have given up our basis for human rights or treatment. Essentially that other person could do something to me and even if I complain that was a wrong deed, my rights have no objective basis or meaning because they're dependent on myself. That leaves humanity in a pretty dark picture if you ask me. So I thought I'd think of a different approach in arguing for the objective basis of moral values in a different format than what I am used to hearing in debates by Dr. William Lane Craig. His format of the argument for objective moral values goes like this:

If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.

Objective moral values exist.

Therefore, God exists.

Although I have listened to this argument for some time now, it became clear to me that another alternative approach to this argument was needed because of different objections and counter examples that surfaced. So here is the format for my argument for objective moral values. Before I begin, I will be making a deductive argument in favor of objective moral values. A deductive argument means that if the premises are true and more plausible then their negations or opposites, then it follows logically, necessarily, and inescapably that the conclusion is true. Also the premises I will be formulating are necessary in advance to develop the argument so that the argument won't be misunderstood. So here it goes:

The physical universe along with human beings has not always existed.

Almost any scientist who has studied the origin of the universe (whether atheist or theist) has concluded that the universe together with human beings did begin to exist in the finite past. Quentin Smith, an atheist philosopher of physics, said the following about the Big Bang:“It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity entails that it is impossible to extend the space-time manifold beyond the singularity. This rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect of some prior natural process.” That statement means that when the universe existed it did not have any physical prior conditions meant to bring about some kind of springing into existence type of scenario. There was no matter, space, or time prior to the origin of the universe because the singularity is contingent on space, matter, and time in order to exist; not the other way around. Some have tried to say that virtual particles are examples of something coming into being out of nothing. Virtual particles are particles that have no definite amounts of energy because they fluctuate in and out of a "web" of energy that is referred to as a vacuum. The output of energy from the vacuum is the cause for the particles to fluctuate and to appear and disappear. Therefore, this does not mean that the universe didn't begin to exist when it really did.

Although this is not part of my argument, I think that given our uniform experience it would be valid and more plausible to say that given that we are born and came into being shows that human beings have not always existed.

Human beings have certain traits or characteristics that do not come from the physical world (reason, logic, reflection, love, ethical judgments, etc)

This premise means that there are certain aspects about who we are, how we formulate beliefs, and how we come to make judgments about the world we live in and that itself means it did not come from the physical world. But why is that? First, because the physical world only produces effects or objects that are physical in nature. In fact, to follow the rules of logic it would have to be said that something that exists in of itself owes its origin or makeup to a preceding reality that corresponds to that very same object we are describing right now. Let me give an example. What is a computer made of? It consists of a keyboard, monitor, mouse pad, computer chip, hardrive, etc. Now those components which are physical themselves make up the computer. The computer would not be a computer without these basic and essential components. So a physical object or reality is made of physical things and comes from another physical reality preceding it. The same is true also with non-physical or immaterial realities such as love, truth, reason, logic, truth, and etc. All these traits or features themselves do not come from the physical universe because they are not physical things in of themselves. The logic is really simple. Whatever is comes from something that portrays what we are trying to explain. We do not say a rod made of metal displays love to another rod because love is a virtue or element that is exemplified through the free will of a personal agent (i.e. human beings). So we can say justifiably that these virtues or qualities do not come from the physical world.

The origin for these traits in human beings must itself not be physical and must come from a Person (non-persons do not possess these traits)

This statement is somewhat repeating the previous statement so I'll make a second point that somewhat extends from the other statement. These traits come from a Person. Why do I say that? Because the traits, given our background knowledge and experience, point to a reality that has to contain them in order for them to exist at all. In other words, in order to show or demonstrate love and truth to another person, one must be able to contain the attribute of love and truth before being able to exemplify it. Before something is demonstrated it has to exist prior to its demonstration. Do trees or the grass show love to each other? Does the mud in the marsh display truth or does a molecule show mercy to another atom? No of course not. Because those things are physical in nature and have no free will because they are governed by the laws of nature and cannot make free choices. Free choices can only be made by free moral agents who possess certain traits and can exemplify them through their actions. This is acknowledged through our uniform or overall experience in nearly every area of life and I don't know of a single example to the contrary that love, truth, the laws of logic, reason, rationality, and moral judgments come from something or somewhere other than a being or person who possesses these traits and can act freely on them. So I think have good grounds for saying that where these traits come from cannot be from the physical universe or world where we live in because they are physical in their own reality and whose effects can only be seen or witnessed by means of volition. It appears absurd to say that the contrary is true.

Therefore, the origin or basis for these moral values is from God

The reason why I say it is God is because God Himself is seen and identified as a Person who has traits about Himself that are within His very own nature. Now we have seen that (1) the universe has not always existed (along with human beings), (2) that the traits we contain and affirm in our daily actions do not entail a physical origin because the physical world doesn't possess these traits and because something immaterial cannot come from something physical, (3) these traits owe their existence and origin from a Person who Himself transcends time and space and matter (immaterial entities come from immaterial realities), and that Person is God. One could argue that the basis for our affirmations of love come from the chemical reactions in the brain. Well, if that were true, then it would be ultimately meaningless to make ethical judgments because brain (which is physical in its own nature and subject to the laws of chemistry) states aren't about anything, do not contain content, and only react based on their predispositions. Whether something is true or not cannot be justified on mere reactions in the brain because truth is a non-physical reality (it can't be verified by the five physical senses) while can be expressed with a physical mechanism (i.e. the lips or hands) do not and cannot come from something physical. Science cannot prove whether something is wrong or right because moral judgments come from a person who is not physical in their own nature and therefore owe their own existence to a transcendent Person.

In conclusion, we can confidently say that the basis or origin for our affirming objective moral values do not come from ourselves ( we didn't always exist) and neither from the physical world (it didn't always exist and doesn't give off non-physical realities nor contains them) and therefore come from a Person (outside the universe) who himself bears those traits and gave us those traits based off his own nature. A few closing thoughts might be necessary. If one is to say that the physical world is all that there is, then what justifies one to say that something is morally right or wrong or even to affirm the truth or the validity of a certain statement? Since the physical universe doesn't possess the laws of logic, reason, and rationality, then our judgments are merely predetermined and cannot be justified via the laws of logic and reason. Therefore, on that statement alone, nothing is true and there is no love in this world. However, one uses his/her intelligence and the laws of logic and reason to argue that the physical universe is all there is which affirms an immaterial reality for these laws and traits of human beings or persons! So we have good reasons for thinking that our moral values that are within ourselves and are exemplified through our daily actions do come from a transcendent Person who created us with our traits and is not physical. That person is God.