Moral Argument for the Existence of God

Samuel Stuart Maynes

New Blood
S
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
7
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.

...

Sniped in compliance with Rule 4. Please do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short passage and provide a source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to JREF 'Samuel Stuart Maynes'.

It sounds like you simply copy and pasted the work of someone as your own: therefore, I suggest that you provide attribution.

Thanks.
 
Kant's reasoning is deeply flawed. It arises from the presumption that the only objective standard of morality must come from a God. This is patently untrue, as morality clearly arises from the needs of social animals, not only in humans but in other species. This is why many societies which are cultural and religiously unrelated have much overlap in their moral precepts. Obviously, there are some precepts which don't overlap, due to history, environment and any other number of factors.

Essentially, Kant makes the same tired argument that since he can't imagine how morality could arise without a God, then it must be impossible. The flaw is in his ability to imagine, not in the the inherent flaws of a secular morality.

Besides, he was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
 
Last edited:
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think Kant offers no evidence that a noumenal spiritual realm exists. The rest is just argument from consequences, which is a logical fallacy.

I haven't studied much Kant, but I doubt he would engage in such a logical fallacy, which suggests that you might be misrepresenting him. Or maybe he was that stupid.
 
Last edited:
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
......we conclude that we must assume that there is One God ........
Click to expand...

Who's "we"?

For pity sake stop preaching and start thinking. Maybe one thing you might think about is whether you have chosen the right audience to preach at. "Preach" might be a good thing in your world, but not here, where it means something akin to spouting unsupported assertions and platitudes.

You won't find many here taking the blindest bit of notice of unsupported argument, and when it boils down to it, you theists have had at least 2000 years to produce some evidence of the existence of a god, and have produced exactly nothing. Zip.

PS. I have reported you for copy-and-pasting stuff wholesale from elsewhere. Philosophy Forums, Shroomery.org, forums.catholic.com so far. We have rules against this, you know.
 
Last edited:
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.

...
Click to expand...

Copypasta form another forum,
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-66724.html

Which you yourself identify as copypasta from your website.
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.:
Click to expand...

You ignored the posters at the philosophyforum, who pointed out to you r that your argument is based on a non-sequitur; requires begging your question, and misstates Kant (not to mention simply asserting the existence and necessity of your 'god', and falling back on pretending that ol'JC {him said to be said to be the "son" of your 'god'} invented the Golden Rule).

What purpose telling you the same thing over again? Will you listen, in this thread?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're attempting to prove that a spirit exists by presupposing that a world for spirits exists.

No.
 
You don’t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps.
Click to expand...

And, conversely, a professed belief in god doesn't make one moral (I hesitate to Godwin the thread so early, but...you know. And let's try to keep away from no-true-Scotsman-type arguments, ok?). The "but it helps" is cute, but doesn't help your argument, since what you need to do is to establish unequivocally that a morality with a god is distinguishable from a morality without one. If you can't demonstrate a difference, then there probably isn't any, let alone an unequivocal one. And if there is no difference, the obvious conclusion is that god is the superfluity here in the equation between man and his morals. You can assume all you like- folks have been doing that for centuries for their various flavors of deity- but your mere assumptions carry no more weight than any others ever have.
 
Last edited:
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.
Click to expand...
But we created god, so where does that put your argument?

1. Develop a self-centered materialistic morality and call it the Golden Rule
2. Invent a 'God' to enforce your rule
3. ???
4. Profit!
 
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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).
Click to expand...

Then please explain why the least religious nations are among the most stable, safe and secure places to live.
 
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists...
Click to expand...

Why would a disbeliever act in such a way? One does not need a cosmic traffic cop to enforce moral traffic lights; one needs only the observation that running traffic lights often results in accidents, and the observation that stopping for red lights results in less harm to self and others.

Rational individuals in civil society can come up with very good morality all on their own, without resorting to gods of any sort.
 
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whatever your personal god might be, people operating under a belief in the auspices of divine, objective moral dictation have engaged in acts of "morality" that are quite horrifying. The edicts of the Hebrew god used to include commandments to kill your own daughter should she be discovered to have had sex with her boyfriend, or kill any family member who even suggested joining another religion. The beating of one's slaves was declared morally just because they are, after all, your property.

There are very real reasons to be good to one another that do not rely on appeals to the supernatural. We are a social species. We don't survive alone, we survive in cooperative groups. Concerns for the welfare of others are clearly to our advantage.
 
Last edited:
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.
Click to expand...

No we must not. For one very good argument can be made about it jsut absed on the fact we are social animals, stability of groups, and population density increasing or being stable.

Once it is possible *only* based on basic argument about group stability to demonstrate a non theistic orgin of morals, occams, razor, the explanation which require the least number of additional entity (zero - no gods) become our null.

Since the assumption fall apart from the get go, the rest can be thrown.
 
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
<snip>

What do you think?

Samuel Stuart Maynes
Click to expand...
I think it's utter rubbish. Just as it was when Aquinas, Kant, Newman, Lewis and all the rest tried to fool people with it.
If you wish to propound this deeply flawed argument you will first need to demonstrate the essentiality and existence of an objective morality.
Further such an argument is inherently very low in moral development (Kohlberg), relying on self-interest and fear of punishment as the driving force for morality.

It's the kind of facile, superficially plausible, argument that believers like to trot out to support their existing god-belief but stands up to no logical scrutiny.
 
Morality from God? Are you sure?

Quote from Mark Twain:
"A man got religion, and asked the priest what he must do to be worthy of his new estate. The priest said ´imitate our Father in Heaven, learn to be like Him.´ The man studied his Bible diligently and thoroughly and understandingly, and then with prayers for heavenly guidance instituted his imitations. He tricked his wife into falling downstairs, and she broke her back and became a paralytic for life; he betrayed his brother into the hands of a sharper, who robbed him of his all and landed him in the almshouse; he inoculated one son with hookworms, another with the sleeping sickness, another with gonorrhea; he furnished one daughter with scarlet fever and ushered her into her teens deaf, dumb, and blind for life; and after helping a rascal seduce the remaining one, he closed his doors against her and she died in a brothel cursing him. Then he reported to the priest, who said that THAT was no way to imitate his Father in Heaven! The convert asked wherein he had failed, but the priest changed the subject and inquired what kind of weather he was having, up his way."

-Mark Twain, Letters From The Earth, Harper & Row, N.Y., 1942 (pb), p. 39
 
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.

...

Sniped in compliance with Rule 4. Please do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short passage and provide a source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
Click to expand...

you mean Shiva?
 
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Moral feelings of conscience could actually be an evolutionary adaptation, just like feeling of pain. We feel pain because, if we did not feel pain, we would be less likely to survive and produce offspring. Likewise, it could well be that we have a conscience for the same reason.

As for "objective" moral values, I don't believe they exist. They are all clearly subjective. They may seem to be objective because we are all closely related animals that evolved similar consciences, but that is merely an artifact of evolution.

Regarding "the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness)", I'm not even sure what that means. What is the "highest good" anyway? How do we know? Relying on our moral intuition? Again, that is merely a product of evolution.

So, there are my responses to all three of the arguments you presented.
 
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.

...
Click to expand...

Why? All "moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values" etc can be explained without reference to any deity.

Welcome to the fun factory Sam.:)
 
Last edited:
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or Jiminy Cricket.
 
The problem with "God did it" explanations is that they're not really explanations. Pretty much no matter what data set you have to explain, "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything about it. What it answers (and I'm being generous here with the meaning of "answers") is "who" instead of "how".

No matter how much or how little you know about neurology, psychology, anthropology, etc, and all the other disciplines relevant to the how and why of moral behaviour, adding a "God did" it leaves you knowing just as much or as little as without God. But it's more general. If you knew how or why something happens, adding a "God did it" doesn't add or change anything to that how and why. And if you didn't, you still don't after going "God did it."

What I'm getting at is that "God did it" just introduces an extra entity in the explanation, for no good reason, since it adds nothing to the actual understanding of the phenomenon.

So almost invariably when I hear "therefore we must assume the existence of God," the answer is, "no, Occam says you should not."
 
HansMustermann said:
The problem with "God did it" explanations is that they're not really explanations. Pretty much no matter what data set you have to explain, "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything about it. What it answers (and I'm being generous here with the meaning of "answers") is "who" instead of "how".

No matter how much or how little you know about neurology, psychology, anthropology, etc, and all the other disciplines relevant to the how and why of moral behaviour, adding a "God did" it leaves you knowing just as much or as little as without God. But it's more general. If you knew how or why something happens, adding a "God did it" doesn't add or change anything to that how and why. And if you didn't, you still don't after going "God did it."

What I'm getting at is that "God did it" just introduces an extra entity in the explanation, for no good reason, since it adds nothing to the actual understanding of the phenomenon.

So almost invariably when I hear "therefore we must assume the existence of God," the answer is, "no, Occam says you should not."
Click to expand...

It's like answering the question: "How do light bulbs work?" with: "They were invented by Thomas Edison" (or whoever it was).
"But how do they work?"
"Mr Edison knows, it is not for us to know such things, for we are not Mr Edison. His ways are mysterious..." etc
 
isissxn said:
Hmmm, it's turning out to be a drive-by spamming post.


Shocker of all shocks.
Click to expand...

Are there religious groups who require of their members a certain amount of proselytizing? I occasionally get the feeling that we're an easy way for some to get their quota of "witnessing" as it's called.

On the darker side, I sometimes also think these drive-by postings are people "showing us the truth" and then sadistically laughing at the idea we're going to burn in hell for all eternity. We've now been shown the error of our lack of beliefs (in their minds) so it's on us that we're going to be tortured with fire for all eternity.
 
Craig4 said:
Are there religious groups who require of their members a certain amount of proselytizing? I occasionally get the feeling that we're an easy way for some to get their quota of "witnessing" as it's called.
Click to expand...
The church I used to go to, while not mandatory, it was expected. Sometimes they seemed to treat it like a competition. "I witnessed to seven people today?" "Really? I witnessed to nine!" "Hallelujah!"
 
Brainache said:
It's like answering the question: "How do light bulbs work?" with: "They were invented by Thomas Edison" (or whoever it was).
"But how do they work?"
"Mr Edison knows, it is not for us to know such things, for we are not Mr Edison. His ways are mysterious..." etc
Click to expand...

Yep. Very much so.
 
HansMustermann said:
The problem with "God did it" explanations is that they're not really explanations. Pretty much no matter what data set you have to explain, "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything about it. What it answers (and I'm being generous here with the meaning of "answers") is "who" instead of "how".

No matter how much or how little you know about neurology, psychology, anthropology, etc, and all the other disciplines relevant to the how and why of moral behaviour, adding a "God did" it leaves you knowing just as much or as little as without God. But it's more general. If you knew how or why something happens, adding a "God did it" doesn't add or change anything to that how and why. And if you didn't, you still don't after going "God did it."

What I'm getting at is that "God did it" just introduces an extra entity in the explanation, for no good reason, since it adds nothing to the actual understanding of the phenomenon.

So almost invariably when I hear "therefore we must assume the existence of God," the answer is, "no, Occam says you should not."
Click to expand...

"goddidit" is just a great example of circular reasoning...

"God inspired the Bible to be written, therefore the Bible is the true word of God, therefore God is real, and he inspired the Bible to be written"

People like Kant (and I'm guessing, the drive by spammer OP) fail to understand a basic premise of proof and evidence. You cannot use the God as evidence of himself. If you are trying to prove that God exists, then God must be excluded as evidence, because it is the thing in question.
 
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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..
Click to expand...

'Yomero's moral argument is quite simple: Santa Claus is not directly apparent in the phenomenal world. (If we try to stay awake and espy on him as he brings the presents, Santa won't come to our house). Since we can not directly see him, the existence of Santa can not be 'proven' beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, (we desire to be on the "Good boys and girls" list), the existence of objective moral values, (any wrongdoing on our part will put us on the "naughty" list), and the rationality of pursuing the highest good, (universal virtue as a means to being sure that we and our friends get our presents), we must assume the existence of Santa Claus.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
"goddidit" is just a great example of circular reasoning...

"God inspired the Bible to be written, therefore the Bible is the true word of God, therefore God is real, and he inspired the Bible to be written"

People like Kant (and I'm guessing, the drive by spammer OP) fail to understand a basic premise of proof and evidence. You cannot use the God as evidence of himself. If you are trying to prove that God exists, then God must be excluded as evidence, because it is the thing in question.
Click to expand...

That or proof by assertion, and a few other fallacies.

What I was getting at though are pretenses of explaining something, and ending up arguing "goddidit" instead. But that's not an explanation.

To illustrate the problem, in another thread I got linked to a youtube video in which one guy basically argued that, hey, we say God created the universe, the scientists say it's a singularity that exploded, we're practically the same. Not in those exact words, but the general gist of it.

But it's not. The big bang theory actually explains stuff like the red shift in distant galaxies, or the cosmic background radiation. Whereas "goddidit" doesn't explain anything. It just asserts who did it. "Knowing" that "goddidit" doesn't get one a iota closer to understanding why we're seeing a certain frequency, nor why do we see it from all directions.

It introduces an unneeded extra entity, and it's seriously unneeded, because it doesn't add anything to the actual explanation. Even if I were to have a stroke, lose half my IQ and start thinking that, yeah, that circular logic sounds sound enough, I'd still be left with an extra entity that doesn't explain anything.
 
Last edited:
Even if all "moral" rules came from a "God" then why assume that this God is truly moral? Might not some or all of these rule be "immoral" in an absolute sense? Why assume this God is moral at all? If fact, the stories in the bible indicate that God is terribly immoral by any sense of the world: he advocates rape, mass slaughter, incest, murder of close relatives, etc. Even outside of the bible, terrible things are allowed to actually occur on Earth by an all knowing and omnipotent God, so I would not look to him as a source of absolute morality. Even if this God created us, which I do not believe, might he not be downright evil? We have only his publicity statements to suggest otherwise. Why is he the arbiter of morality? If I create lesser beings, can I torture them at will? Have not many of his followers done evil claiming God inspired them to do so?

The "need" for a source of absolute morality is not fulfilled even if one postulates a God. Sorry, we all have to puzzle this one out for ourselves.
 
I watched a debate between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig. WLC was arguing (poorly) that there is no morality without his flavor of god. To paraphrase 'We all know it is wrong to take an automatic weapon into a school and shoot the children and their teachers' because somehow god.
I posit that had the ancient Israelites had automatic weapons, they would have done just that. Instead they did it up close and personal with spears and swords.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Click to expand...

Oops! They wouldn't have shot the little girls. The "fun" with them would come later.
the god of the bilebible is not someone to emulate for morality.
 
arthwollipot said:
The church I used to go to, while not mandatory, it was expected. Sometimes they seemed to treat it like a competition. "I witnessed to seven people today?" "Really? I witnessed to nine!" "Hallelujah!"
Click to expand...

So it was down to quantity rather than quality?

:)

I believe that there's a spelling mistake in the OP - you don't spell immoral like that...
 
For more on this subject, see how the Euthyphro Dilemma is applied to Christianity today:

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.
Click to expand...

Let's expand on this. If right and wrong are arbitrarily determined by God, then God can make murder illegal on Saturday and legal on Sunday. In fact, this seems to be exactly what he does in the Bible. It's wrong to murder unless God sanctions it, which he does quite often in the Old Testament.

With moral consistency like that, sure, let's make God our moral exemplar. :rolleyes:
 
Hell, he can make murder or genocide mandatory and consider you evil, and even punish you for not doing the commanded genocide. It's not a theoretical. He did before.

1 Samuel 28:16-19:

16. Samuel said, “Why do you consult me, now that the Lord has departed from you and become your enemy?

17. The Lord has done what he predicted through me. The Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David.

18. Because you did not obey the Lord or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the Lord has done this to you today.

19. The Lord will deliver both Israel and you into the hands of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also give the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.”​

Samuel is a ghost at that point, so "tomorrow you and your sons will be with me" means exactly what it sounds like. Not only is the Lord flat out turned enemy on Saul, but Saul AND his sons will be killed by the Lord. For what crime, you may ask? Because although Saul killed ALMOST every man, woman, child, baby, etc when he attacked the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15, like the Lord commanded, he spared ONE man. And that act of mercy was why Saul now was the Lord's enemy, and must die.

I mean, his crime isn't even refusing to do a genocide. It's not making it a COMPLETE genocide.

Meanwhile, David is now the Lord's favourite, because, I kid you not, "Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes." (1 Samuel 27:9)
 
Last edited:
Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are not going to account for anything better by assuming an entity you don't know nothing about than by not assuming it. IOW God does not explain anything here (Or elsewhere!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom