Moral Argument for the Existence of God

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The following is a brief excerpt of the moral argument contained on the Preview page 2 of my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca.

“Kant’s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can ‘know’ nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be ‘proven’ beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

It is for the highest theoretical and practical reasons of systematic unity that we will that the maxim of our actions should conform to a universal law. This objective moral law – the categorical imperative – is expressed personally in the Golden Rule; Do as you would be done by others. In regard to any action of moral significance, this rule prompts the personal question: “How would you like it if somebody did that to you?” In more general terms, the universal categorical imperative boils down to; Act as you would have everyone act, which suggests the universal question regarding the morality of any contemplated action: “What if everybody did that?”

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don’t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do… Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost… etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume’s famous moral question: “Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?” – What’s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God.”

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

2

Define spiritual and how spiritual interacts with the material and moreover provide evidence of the spiritual. Also, I don’t see how would the existence of another sentient being make morality objective, what is it that would make the morality coming from god objective and not a result of his personal subjective opinions? And how would you know that his morality is objective and how would you know what his morality is, anyway?

It’s easy to see morality as objective and black/white if your thinking about it is really shallow. Of course it’s easy to see obvious things like murder and rape as evil and it would be best if we could also say that they’re OBJECTIVELY evil, right? But what about harder moral issues, like death penalty, abortion, or euthanasia? Or what about the famous trolley examples? Do you have a definitive, objective answer to all of those too?

“How would you like it if somebody did that to you?” Surely sounds nice, right? And it is nice, in MOST situations I’d say. But definitely not all. Take masochists for a simple and obvious example. So it’s not exactly an objective maxim.

I’m a “disbeliever” and the (non)existence of deities doesn’t influence my actions in any way, I don’t act much differently now than I did while I was a believer. Well, truth be told, I stole cards and toys while I was a believer, though that’s probably cause I was a kid and not because of my belief in God. Also, saying that something is so because we would dislike the consequences of it not being so (there is a God because if there wasn’t morality would be relative) is a rather poor argument, called “argument from consequence” and it’s considered a logical fallacy as our personal wishes don’t make something true/untrue. To make things worse, you didn’t even establish God as the only possible explanation for an objective morality, you didn’t even explain why God is a POSSIBLE explanation.

Or else I could just say: “I have a diamond the size of the fridge in my backyard cause if I didn’t then I wouldn’t be able to buy myself a new car, therefore it must be buried there somewhere.” I hope you can notice yourself how unconvincing of an argument that is.

When it comes to morality I have a tendency to judge people’s actions and not words to determine their morality, and I consider that a reasonable thing to do as morality is about interactions between humans. Sure, you can say whatever you want about atheists, but when it comes to morality, deeds speak louder than words, don’t you think?

And, statistically speaking, there is a lesser number of atheists committing crimes and less of them are in prisons. Although it’s also a fact that religious people on average give more to charity.

Again an argument from consequence, also it wouldn’t mean that our constructs of moral reason have no basis, just that they have no OBJECTIVE basis. And who says that they don’t? The reason we accept and uphold laws is because it’s good for us. Most of us don’t want to be robbed, beaten up, raped or killed, all of which can easily and without repercussions occur in a lawless society. So we make laws to benefit the large majority. Why would it have to be objective and absolute?

3

Firstly. Theists would be hard pressed to come up with a moral God of the O.T.

That God was quite immoral. That aside.

The God I know is not an absentee God who never communicates with those who seek him.

The Father is the usual designation for God. God, the Father of Jesus is a deadbeat dad who cuckolded Joseph after coveting his woman.

God who can cure as easily as kill, also chooses to kill instead of cure most of the time.

That is hardly a moral God.

There is indeed a moral God but certainly not the Christian God of war.

God even names himself as a sinner in Job 2;3 so he recognizes that he does not always do the moral thing.

3 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou didst move Me against him, to destroy him without cause.’

Satan moved God to do evil. Oh my.

Regards
DL

4

“Greatest I am,” thanks for the reply, but you don’t need to talk to God to know that the one categorical imperative – Act as you would have everybody act – is an “objective” moral law which we give to ourselves based on pure reason. This law is objective in the same sense that mathematics (e.g. 2+2=4) is an object of reason, and can be relied upon.

As the great idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, practical reason requires us to “act as if God exists.” For it is not God (whose will it may however be), but reason that gives us the moral law.

Not God, but pure reason dictates, and practical reason authorizes us to assume the prime moral directive expressed personally in the Golden Rule, which is universal among all major religions; and more generally in the One Categorical Imperative, enunciated by the great philosopher. Meditating on the existence and nature of God, human reason naturally and inevitably rises to a divine concept of universal pure practical moral duty, which requires freewill, and can only be perfected in a sequence of lives, with the help of God.

More than just a rational construct, the systematic unity of this comprehensive worldview authorizes us to stake our lives on the principle of universal morality – the one categorical imperative or Golden Rule – and the three postulates of practical reason: freewill, God, and immortality.

As Kant says, I would find myself abhorrent in my own eyes if I did not obey the one moral law; and the existence of God is “necessary to give this law adequate efficiency, and for us, obligatory force.” Because after all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view.

Even though their reason and conscience tells them that the categorical imperative or Golden Rule is more than just a good idea, atheists sometimes take the obtuse view that they can violate this universal moral law with impunity, because there is no God and no afterlife in which they will have to face the people they have wronged. We have to keep working on these people

Samuel Stuart Maynes
religiouspluralism.ca

5

The one categorical imperative – Act as you would have everybody act – is an “objective” (even absolute) moral law which we give to ourselves based on pure reason. This law is objective in the same sense that mathematics (e.g. 2+2=4) is a synthetic a priori object of reason, and can be relied upon.

As the great idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, practical reason requires us to “act as if God exists.” For it is not God (whose will it may however be), but reason that gives us the moral law.

Not God, but pure reason dictates, and practical reason authorizes us to assume the prime moral directive expressed personally in the Golden Rule, which is universal among all major religions; and more generally in the One Categorical Imperative, enunciated by the great philosopher. Meditating on the existence and nature of God, human reason naturally and inevitably rises to a divine concept of universal pure practical moral duty, which requires freewill, and can only be perfected in a sequence of lives, with the help of God.

More than just a rational construct, the systematic unity of this comprehensive worldview authorizes us to stake our lives on the principle of universal morality – the one categorical imperative or Golden Rule – and the three postulates of practical reason: freewill, God, and immortality.

As Kant says, I would find myself abhorrent in my own eyes if I did not obey the one moral law; and the existence of God is “necessary to give this law adequate efficiency, and for us, obligatory force.” Because after all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
religiouspluralism.ca

6

The one categorical imperative – Act as you would have everybody act – is an “objective” (even absolute) moral law which we give to ourselves based on pure reason. This law is objective in the same sense that mathematics (e.g. 2+2=4) is a synthetic a priori object of reason, and can be relied upon.

As the great idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, practical reason requires us to “act as if God exists.” For it is not God (whose will it may however be), but reason that gives us the moral law.

Not God, but pure reason dictates, and practical reason authorizes us to assume the prime moral directive expressed personally in the Golden Rule, which is universal among all major religions; and more generally in the One Categorical Imperative, enunciated by the great philosopher. Meditating on the existence and nature of God, human reason naturally and inevitably rises to a divine concept of universal pure practical moral duty, which requires freewill, and can only be perfected in a sequence of lives, with the help of God.

More than just a rational construct, the systematic unity of this comprehensive worldview authorizes us to stake our lives on the principle of universal morality – the one categorical imperative or Golden Rule – and the three postulates of practical reason: freewill, God, and immortality.

As Kant says, I would find myself abhorrent in my own eyes if I did not obey the one moral law; and the existence of God is “necessary to give this law adequate efficiency, and for us, obligatory force.” Because after all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view.

It is for the highest theoretical and practical reasons of systematic unity that we will that the maxim of our actions should conform to a universal law. This objective moral law – the categorical imperative – is expressed personally in the Golden Rule; Do as you would be done by others. In regard to any action of moral significance, this rule prompts the personal question: “How would you like it if somebody did that to you?” In more general terms, the universal categorical imperative boils down to; Act as you would have everyone act, which suggests the universal question regarding the morality of any contemplated action: “What if everybody did that?”

Samuel Stuart Maynes
religiouspluralism.ca

7

If you are wrong and morals are subjective, then the whole of your thinking is wrong. To make a tenet of morality an object is to create an idol.

To show atheists “atheists sometimes take the obtuse view that they can violate this universal moral law with impunity,”, without including non-atheists in this, is quite disingenuous of you.

It shows a lot of unhealthy hate.

Regards
DL

8

The Golden Rule, as admired as it is, cannot be an imperative moral law simply because of the ambiguity involved.

If I were to treat a woman as I would have her treat me, then I would be treating her as if she were a man. As much as such a thought is promoted, she seriously doesn’t want to be treated as men are treated regardless of how much she might think that she does. Equally, should she treat me as if I was a woman?

To treat others as you would have them treat you implies some underlying presumption and limit usually involving, “If I were in his shoes”. The problem is that no one is really ever in a position to know what it is to be in another person’s shoes, having led their life.

So the rule is a nice idea and applies in a loose sense, but not in the exacting sense that a moral imperative requires.

9

The Golden Rule isn’t a categorical imperative, it’s a hypothetical imperative…

10

Why would it? Belief in god may help SOME people act morally, but theists generally still commit more crimes than atheists. Practical reason requires of me that I be nice to people if they’re nice to me, that’s how I function every day and works just fine without believing in god or acting as if God exists.

And again, you didn’t prove why the existence of God is necessary for objective morality or how does the existence of another sentient being suddenly make morality objective. You just claimed it.
And what do you mean by “creating all humankind equal”? Equal in what? Intelligence? Physical appearance? Physical capabilities? Talents? On what do you intend to base that equality?

Seems to me like you’re just preaching and advertising your book.

11

“How would you like it if somebody did that to you, and what if everybody did that?” Did your mother never ask you these universal moral questions when you failed to be “nice” to your childhood playmates?

If there is no “objective” morality (no categorical moral imperative), then anything goes, and even abysmal maxims such as, “Never give a sucker an even break” may be considered rational, and conditional morality becomes the norm.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
religiouspluralism.ca

12

Again, argument from consequence… just because we would like something to be so doesn’t make it so. And some other people here already pointed out the flaws in your imperative.

13

There is no “Moral” argument for the existence of anything.
Existence can only proceed from an epistemological argument.

14

The moral argument for the existence of God is an epistemological argument. Read more.

15

Really? Is it about knowledge?

16

Yes, it tries to show that belief in God is entailed by what we know about morality. That’s an epistemological argument- an argument about moral knowledge.

17

It cannot be because we have nothing in terms of knowledge that we can apply to God as nothing can be confirmed.

If it cannot be confirmed then it is not real knowledge. It is all speculation and opinion. Not knowledge.

Regards
DL

18

Except that the first instance of morality that God is showing, according to scriptures is, is that it is good justice to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

God moral knowle3dge seems to be 0. That or he has no morals and applies immorality to his judgements.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

The above quote shows this as Gods first actual judgement and shows the setting and accepting of a bribe or human sacrifice to corrupt his justice. That justice usually stated that only the punishment of the guilty was acceptable to justice and that it would be unjust to punish the innocent. That corruption of his usual justice is what the bribe or sacrifice of Jesus bought. Injustice.

This corrupted judge is the judge you would vote for is it?

Regards
DL

19

That’s nice. Nevertheless, the Moral Argument for the existence of God is an epistemological argument. Whether or not God Himself is good has nothing to do with it, which is clear if you have an even basic understanding of the words I’m saying.

20

Dictionary.

Ignorance.

Regards
DL