Moral Argument for Existence of God

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.