All moral arguments for the existence of God work on the principle that we all have a shared sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, broadly speaking, humans worldwide have a vague idea of what is right and what is wrong; a moral argument for the existence of God would say that this mutual understanding is proof of God's existence.
Immanuel Kant put forward this argument (although, not a moral argument); God as the source of objective morality. Firstly, he addressed the categorical imperative; our own sense of duty, and that being moral was case of following this principle, for example, paying your debts. He said that it was our duty to promote the highest good (summum bonum), however virtue and happiness are independent of one another, in that it is often the case that the virtuous are unhappy and the wicked are happy. Kant then went on to say that it is only in the next life, after death that the union of virtue and happiness must occur (here solving the problem of evil). And therefore, it is logical to presume that there is an afterlife, and consequently a God for morality to exist.
Kant believed it impossible to argue from the world to God (hence why he rejected moral arguments for the existence of God) as he regarded such an exercise to be impossible. However, he did think that God was a postulate of practical reason. The word postulate meaning an assumption of truth as the basis of an argument or theory, although Kant used the term in a stronger sense, to denote the idea of something which is required to be the case. The postulates of morality, for example, denote the assumptions that must be made by anyone who accepts an objective morality. Kant had great trust in the universe being fair, and that if summum bon...
... middle of paper ...
...ee it as an aim and would therefore never strive to achieve it. With a goal or an aspiration, there is always the chance that we may not acquire it, which essentially makes us make every effort.
Lastly, there is still the problem that proof of the existence of God is beyond the scope of all the moral arguments. The most that they could possibly establish is the existence of a being that makes laws, nothing more.
In conclusion, we cannot use the moral argument to prove the existence of God. For those who already believe (in either God or morality as an objective law) then the moral argument may strengthen their belief, but it cannot prove to a non-believer that there is in fact a God. Whereas the argument can suggest that the existence of God would lead us to believe in moral laws, the existence of moral laws cannot lead us the conclusion of God undeniably existing.
Descartes second argument for proving God’s existence is very straightforward. He has four possibilities that created his existence. Through process of elimination he is left with God being his creator.
In conclusion I am left pretty much in the same place as I have started. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God philosophically. For every philosopher who publishes his or her opinions on the subject, three more are there to tear it down. In the end I think it is best that man does not figure out the answer to this lifelong question. Some things are better left unanswered.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
In Truth Matters, Köstenberger asks “If there’s no God, if there’s no Word, no truth, then what makes someone who busts out your windshield any more wrong than if they wash your car or buy you a tank of gas?” (Köstenberger 22) In God’s Not Dead, Wheaton also brings up this argument by stating that morality leads directly back to God. If God did not exist, then human by nature would not be able to tell the difference between right or wrong, unless that ability was given to them by an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, in both cases, the existence of morality is used as an argument to prove the existence of
Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral responsibility not only to others, but ourselves. It is obvious that many people do believe in god, but many of us choose to do so for reasons other than just believing in God. I do believe that just because there is no evidence, that does not mean God doesn’t exist. Like I said, God brings more to our lives than just a belief, but an ability to achieve a better one. And even if God is just an imaginary figure, he is an imaginary figure that brings hope and goodness to our lives, which we can never discount.
Reasoning like this, alone is not sufficient to prove the existence of God, but it provides us with firm ground to rationally approve and understand the existence of God. One must have faith, to truly acknowledge and believe in the existence of God because as God is perfect and we are not, we cannot see or know the true perfect with full confidence, unless God intervenes--"faith is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).
To begin, proof of God’s existence is seen in the group of cosmological arguments. The cosmological arguments are a set of arguments that demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the existence of the cosmos, or the universe as a whole. There are three different types of cosmological arguments, the Kalam, Thomist and and Leibnizian cosmological arguments. Proponents of the cosmological argument include Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. Contemporary defenders include William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.
...erceive in our mind if we don’t have a good experiences. Kant has the same concern with the cosmological proof. He states “whether we can successfully bridge the gap between our idea of a perfect being and demonstrative proof of its existence” The teleological proof proves that God is the existence of creator. However he wonders the idea of the first creator would lead back to the flaws of the ontological proof. He uses his concept “Moral Postulates” to demonstrate God. First moral behavior is rational, we have reason to be moral such as we know our duty for school work, job and family. Second, Kant argue that we need immortality in order to make the perfect good. The last postulates said the morally necessary to postulate Gods existence. “Moral Postulates” portray an attempt for Kant to limit the theoretical view of God instead of expand the practical philosophy.
The Divine Command Theory and Relativism make strong claims on the source of morality. Robert C. Mortimer describes in Morality Is Based on God’s Commands that morality itself is derived from the act of God deeming things as either right or wrong. The following claim “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” is believable when following Divine Command Theory as compared to other theistic views. I shall display two theist claims which respectively accept and reject the previous statement, as well as arguing the the plausibility of each claim.
of the arguments in favor of God, or a so-called "higher power" are based on
Kant creates a beautiful moral theory only fit for the Gods, assuming you believe in a divinity to begin with. It is not difficult to like what Kant writes and imagine how such an extraordinary system might govern something as spiritually charged as moral theory. However, Kant commits the fatal flaw in presenting his moral theory. He takes the assumption that the potential to act on pure reason is innately a human characteristic and from this sets to prove his theory. Given this assumption, his argument is brilliantly made. However, he has no real basis for this argument. Kant even admits the limit of his assumption.
Typically many religious people claim that ethics and morality relies on what God rules them to be and fail to see that morality can still be just as significant to a person that doesn't believe in God. Theists, followers of God presume religion to be a substantial reason for our moral conduct. Nonbelievers such as atheists are still capable of understanding the difference between what is right and wrong without religion. John, believes that if there wasn't a higher power to give us the set rules and reasons of how to behave then anything we do would be measured equally. Whereas Andrea, who is against this theory points out that God is not the key for having moral values. Her argument seems to be more convincing because an atheist can still to do the right thing based on their own interest if it has a rational explanation for moral values. The only difference is that non-believers don't have a supreme ruler to measure the intensity of how moral their actions are. Doing the right or wrong thing should be justified on a level of whether or not your actions hurt or harm someone in any w...
In the question of faith and reason it is ridiculous to claim that God or any matter of the Divine may be proven by reason. And although I agree with the Bernard of Clairvaux on this one matter I agree for a different reason. He leaves the only answer to be faith. I do not think there is any true way to prove religious matters. Though it may be easy at times to disprove them with the use of reason, it becomes difficult to do so with faith. It is impossible to use faith and reason in conjunction with eachother. Faith is a belief in something that does not have reason, so therefore if something can be proved with philosophical reasoning there would be no reason to have faith except for in the case where reason does not answer the question. This reasoning equation, in the end, does not add up.
...This is completely false because God made the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus sacrificed himself so he could redeem humanity and that all their sins would be forgiven. Making such a self sacrifice is good proof that God cares for humanity. The last reason that proves the existence of God is how we look at God. Most of humanity believes that God must look up to humanity, where as the truth is we must look up to God. The best argument that atheists have to disapprove the existence of God is the presence of evil. But their argument is shut down by the Augustinian theodicy. These reasons are great proof that shows the existence of God. Any atheist who reads all ten reasons and the Augustinian theodicy can never disapprove the existence of God.
...there are moral standards that stand separate from the will of God. However, with the second choice, the commands of God are actually worthless. In response, the only conclusions are that the commands of God are actually meaningless or there is a standard of morality that exists separately from God. This would offend many religions and the religious perspectives of the people in them. However, in this case, they would have to accept a standard of morality that was separate from God’s will.