I agree with the moral argument, for the existence of God. God id divine and and benevolent. he wants the best for his creation. through God's divine commands, he fixes the content of morality.He motivates moral behavior by enforcing consequences for acting immorally. For example, if someone cheats off someone else on exam, they feel guilt for that action, and it stays with them until the action is made right again. God has his ways, and creates moral order in the world. i think that there is a superior benevolent being that wants the best for is creation, and i think that the moral argument is great evidence.
The moral argument does provide evidence for God's existence. The first is that all humans have morals. Morals have to be given to people by someone or something and in this case God is the someone. God gave people morals to live by and use. Another way to prove that God is real from this argument is through someone having to enforce these rules. Or someone has to be all seeing and all knowing like, God. God is the man who enforces moral authority. The last way this argument proves that God exists is moral norms. Moral norms have authority to be moral. Those are there things in this argument that prove that God is real.
The cosmological argument is deductive, and the design argument is inductive, but the moral argument is past that. If confirmed, it does not prove that God exists, but rather that believing in God is the right thing to do. This is more than enough of a motive for me to believe in God, but I feel that it will not be enough for others. The moral argument does present good evidence for this, however. It uses the undesirable consequences of the modern system of value to advocate the classical one, and uses the negative results of amoralism to dissuade us from it. Furthermore, its most convincing argument for me was the question of conscience: Where does it come from? Simply because no other explanations seem to be sufficient, God is our best option.All these arguments provide good evidence for God's existence.
I believe in God largely through the moral argument. I have found that of all the arguments we have studied, it does the most to affirm my faith in God. This argument states that if morality really does exist as a fact and not as a matter of subjective preference, then God clearly exists-- how else would morality come into being? Lots of people regard mathematics as being the same way. It is absolute. That is, the rules we have established in math have always existed in our universe, and we are discovering them. I personally see music the same way. I think these fields which are absolute and have existed by the same rules since the beginning of time are strong evidence for the existence of a benevolent God. However, there are reasonable counterpoints. If morality is a matter of subjective preference, then we have proved nothing-- music and mathematics could be contrivances as well. If all moral perception is simply a projection, then as far as I can tell, so is any particular feeling of "spirituality" or "godliness". I just don't think that's the case.
The moral argument does provide evidence towards the existence of God. One reason is that neither morals nor God are directly observable. This means that even though morals can not be observed, they exist. So if God can not be directly observed, then God must exist. Also, we have a sort of order to our morals in the world. Some actions are looked down upon more while others are praised. Some actions are worse than others, while others can be better than others. Even though morality is very subjective at times, there is still a basic outline to how most humans view morality. This very structured system points towards there being some sort of intelligent agent behind all this order. Lastly, the concept of consequences for actions reinforces the existence of God. This is because, similar to the moral order, consequences need to have an intelligent agent to make them. These three pieces of evidence point towards the existence of God.
The moral argument does not provide evidence for the existence of God, as it only states that their is a fundamental morality to the universe. This cannot prove the existence of God, because it does not explicitly mean that God is responsible for this system of morality. It could be some other cause, scientific or otherwise. Also, even if their is a cause similar to God responsible for it, this system of morality could have been created by some other force, not neccessarily God. Finally, there are certain flaws in the moral argument, that would imply that the argument itself is unsubstantial proof.
The moral argument provides evidence for existence of God. The first argument stated is that all humans have morals. Morals are only given to people by someone or something. With this case the person/thing is God. He gave us morals so we can use them and live by them. Another way to prove the reality of god from the argument is with somebody enforcing the rules. Yet another way is that this all-seeing, all-knowing person could be God: the guy who can, and does, enforce moral authority. The final way this argument is proving that God exists is by 'Moral Norms'. These 'Moral Norms' have the authority to be moral.
I believe that the moral argument does give good evidence for the existence of God. The world was "born" with morals. Humans have always thought of things such as death and rape as punishable and things like good grades and doing community service as rewardable. If God didn't create morals, then who did? Society couldn't have because every society has its own way of perceiving things. Even though we do not all abide by the same laws, there are still morals laws that every country follows. Only an all powerful being could have made it so that every society follows the same golden morals. And lastly, God looks out for his creations. If we didn't have morals, then the world would be in way worse shape than it is now. I believe that God made the Ten Commandments and morals in general, so that his creations did not completely fly off the handle. He is all-knowing so he obviously knew that certain rules had to be put into place so that each society could function and run as smooth as possible.
I don't believe the moral argument provides evidence of God. One reason I feel this way is because though the true source of human morals is unknown, that does not mean that the cause must be God; morals may have any number of different causes. They could be the result of a greater force, or they could simply be a product of social influence and standards. Also, different morals exist in different cultures. Americans may find racism to be "wrong," but another culture may find it acceptable; such as Germany in the 1930s and '40s. If one being, God, is responsible for morals, wouldn't those beliefs be universal? Finally, my last issue with the moral argument proving God's existence is the issue of motivation. People do what is conceived as "right" because they believe that God will reward them in the end; that much is true. However, in no way does that prove that God exists. People are conditioned to know that they will be rewarded for performing socially-acceptable, morally "good" actions. None of these aspects of the moral argument give evidence for the existence of God; they only prove that morals exist in the human world.
I do not think that the moral argument is evidence for the existence of God. However, this does not mean that I do not agree with this argument. I like how the moral argument goes about proving that morality exists, which is the basis of the argument. But it is this that makes the moral argument a poor choice for proving that God exists. The whole point of this argument is to prove the existence of morals, not God. Another reason why this argument is bad for proving God's existence is that it raises questions instead of giving answers that annihilate all doubts. The biggest example of this is the questions it raises surrounding conscience and morals, particularly the ones about their origin. If it were good evidence for the existence of God, then I feel that it wouldn't leave people wondering where conscience and morals come from. Finally, the moral argument states in a sort of roundabout way that, since there are morals (therefore right and wrong), there is wrongdoing in the world. This worngdoing could be thought of as evil. Many people find believing in God to be hard when they think of all the evil and wrongdoing in the world. I am not one of these people, but some may see the moral argument as proof against the existence of God in this way.
i would say that without a higher power to initially establish a moral balance, there would be no moral standard. there would be no idea of what actually is right or wrong. there can be interpretation on what is actually okay by higher courts and personal council. i think the moral argument shows that there is a higher power that is the symbol of good conscience. if there wasnt and pre determined rights and wrongs people could very well be set back to the stone-age. i think the idea of good and evil is conditioned into human beings throughout there lives and that develops the sub conscience under tone that tells you what not to do.
I do think that it could be in a way evidence for the existence of God but not good evidence. One of the reasons that it is not good evidence is that it was not meant to be proof for the existence of God but the proof of morals, two very different things. Another reason why it is not evidence for the existence of God is that to certain people different things mays be right and to others some things may be wrong. For example world war 2. The Germans believed that the Jews were bad people and to us now they are not bad people. Finally another reason that it is not proof for the existence of God is that the amount of evil and wrongness in the world. If there is so many people doing what is wrong then how can we believe in God.
The moral argument point directly towards the fact that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. All over the world, people of all different races, religions, and political backgrounds unanimously agree that certain actions are wrong, such as rape, theft, and murder. They disagree on all other aspects of life other then moral laws. People also have developed consciences that let them know the moral road that they should abide by. Also, people are conditioned to behave well due to consequences they will receive. They know what is right and wrong, which persuades them into what tyope of consequences they'd like to get.
I agree that it does prove god exist because of the morals that we have today. That we think that gods exist depending on occurring events. Like for example in the movie contact Ellie lost both of her parents and she thinks that if there was god why would he let this happen. If she didn't have morals about this we would have never of thought of God. It depends on what you believe in cause you have morals on what you believe.
I agree with the moral argument, for the existence of God. God id divine and and benevolent. he wants the best for his creation. through God's divine commands, he fixes the content of morality.He motivates moral behavior by enforcing consequences for acting immorally. For example, if someone cheats off someone else on exam, they feel guilt for that action, and it stays with them until the action is made right again. God has his ways, and creates moral order in the world. i think that there is a superior benevolent being that wants the best for is creation, and i think that the moral argument is great evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe moral argument does provide evidence for God's existence. The first is that all humans have morals. Morals have to be given to people by someone or something and in this case God is the someone. God gave people morals to live by and use. Another way to prove that God is real from this argument is through someone having to enforce these rules. Or someone has to be all seeing and all knowing like, God. God is the man who enforces moral authority. The last way this argument proves that God exists is moral norms. Moral norms have authority to be moral. Those are there things in this argument that prove that God is real.
ReplyDeleteThe cosmological argument is deductive, and the design argument is inductive, but the moral argument is past that. If confirmed, it does not prove that God exists, but rather that believing in God is the right thing to do. This is more than enough of a motive for me to believe in God, but I feel that it will not be enough for others. The moral argument does present good evidence for this, however. It uses the undesirable consequences of the modern system of value to advocate the classical one, and uses the negative results of amoralism to dissuade us from it. Furthermore, its most convincing argument for me was the question of conscience: Where does it come from? Simply because no other explanations seem to be sufficient, God is our best option.All these arguments provide good evidence for God's existence.
ReplyDeleteI believe in God largely through the moral argument. I have found that of all the arguments we have studied, it does the most to affirm my faith in God. This argument states that if morality really does exist as a fact and not as a matter of subjective preference, then God clearly exists-- how else would morality come into being? Lots of people regard mathematics as being the same way. It is absolute. That is, the rules we have established in math have always existed in our universe, and we are discovering them. I personally see music the same way. I think these fields which are absolute and have existed by the same rules since the beginning of time are strong evidence for the existence of a benevolent God.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are reasonable counterpoints. If morality is a matter of subjective preference, then we have proved nothing-- music and mathematics could be contrivances as well. If all moral perception is simply a projection, then as far as I can tell, so is any particular feeling of "spirituality" or "godliness". I just don't think that's the case.
The moral argument does provide evidence towards the existence of God. One reason is that neither morals nor God are directly observable. This means that even though morals can not be observed, they exist. So if God can not be directly observed, then God must exist. Also, we have a sort of order to our morals in the world. Some actions are looked down upon more while others are praised. Some actions are worse than others, while others can be better than others. Even though morality is very subjective at times, there is still a basic outline to how most humans view morality. This very structured system points towards there being some sort of intelligent agent behind all this order. Lastly, the concept of consequences for actions reinforces the existence of God. This is because, similar to the moral order, consequences need to have an intelligent agent to make them. These three pieces of evidence point towards the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteThe moral argument does not provide evidence for the existence of God, as it only states that their is a fundamental morality to the universe. This cannot prove the existence of God, because it does not explicitly mean that God is responsible for this system of morality. It could be some other cause, scientific or otherwise. Also, even if their is a cause similar to God responsible for it, this system of morality could have been created by some other force, not neccessarily God. Finally, there are certain flaws in the moral argument, that would imply that the argument itself is unsubstantial proof.
ReplyDeleteThe moral argument provides evidence for existence of God. The first argument stated is that all humans have morals. Morals are only given to people by someone or something. With this case the person/thing is God. He gave us morals so we can use them and live by them. Another way to prove the reality of god from the argument is with somebody enforcing the rules. Yet another way is that this all-seeing, all-knowing person could be God: the guy who can, and does, enforce moral authority. The final way this argument is proving that God exists is by 'Moral Norms'. These 'Moral Norms' have the authority to be moral.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the moral argument does give good evidence for the existence of God. The world was "born" with morals. Humans have always thought of things such as death and rape as punishable and things like good grades and doing community service as rewardable. If God didn't create morals, then who did? Society couldn't have because every society has its own way of perceiving things. Even though we do not all abide by the same laws, there are still morals laws that every country follows. Only an all powerful being could have made it so that every society follows the same golden morals. And lastly, God looks out for his creations. If we didn't have morals, then the world would be in way worse shape than it is now. I believe that God made the Ten Commandments and morals in general, so that his creations did not completely fly off the handle. He is all-knowing so he obviously knew that certain rules had to be put into place so that each society could function and run as smooth as possible.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the moral argument provides evidence of God. One reason I feel this way is because though the true source of human morals is unknown, that does not mean that the cause must be God; morals may have any number of different causes. They could be the result of a greater force, or they could simply be a product of social influence and standards. Also, different morals exist in different cultures. Americans may find racism to be "wrong," but another culture may find it acceptable; such as Germany in the 1930s and '40s. If one being, God, is responsible for morals, wouldn't those beliefs be universal? Finally, my last issue with the moral argument proving God's existence is the issue of motivation. People do what is conceived as "right" because they believe that God will reward them in the end; that much is true. However, in no way does that prove that God exists. People are conditioned to know that they will be rewarded for performing socially-acceptable, morally "good" actions. None of these aspects of the moral argument give evidence for the existence of God; they only prove that morals exist in the human world.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the moral argument is evidence for the existence of God. However, this does not mean that I do not agree with this argument. I like how the moral argument goes about proving that morality exists, which is the basis of the argument. But it is this that makes the moral argument a poor choice for proving that God exists. The whole point of this argument is to prove the existence of morals, not God. Another reason why this argument is bad for proving God's existence is that it raises questions instead of giving answers that annihilate all doubts. The biggest example of this is the questions it raises surrounding conscience and morals, particularly the ones about their origin. If it were good evidence for the existence of God, then I feel that it wouldn't leave people wondering where conscience and morals come from. Finally, the moral argument states in a sort of roundabout way that, since there are morals (therefore right and wrong), there is wrongdoing in the world. This worngdoing could be thought of as evil. Many people find believing in God to be hard when they think of all the evil and wrongdoing in the world. I am not one of these people, but some may see the moral argument as proof against the existence of God in this way.
ReplyDeletei would say that without a higher power to initially establish a moral balance, there would be no moral standard. there would be no idea of what actually is right or wrong. there can be interpretation on what is actually okay by higher courts and personal council. i think the moral argument shows that there is a higher power that is the symbol of good conscience.
ReplyDeleteif there wasnt and pre determined rights and wrongs people could very well be set back to the stone-age. i think the idea of good and evil is conditioned into human beings throughout there lives and that develops the sub conscience under tone that tells you what not to do.
I do think that it could be in a way evidence for the existence of God but not good evidence. One of the reasons that it is not good evidence is that it was not meant to be proof for the existence of God but the proof of morals, two very different things. Another reason why it is not evidence for the existence of God is that to certain people different things mays be right and to others some things may be wrong. For example world war 2. The Germans believed that the Jews were bad people and to us now they are not bad people. Finally another reason that it is not proof for the existence of God is that the amount of evil and wrongness in the world. If there is so many people doing what is wrong then how can we believe in God.
ReplyDeleteThe moral argument point directly towards the fact that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. All over the world, people of all different races, religions, and political backgrounds unanimously agree that certain actions are wrong, such as rape, theft, and murder. They disagree on all other aspects of life other then moral laws. People also have developed consciences that let them know the moral road that they should abide by. Also, people are conditioned to behave well due to consequences they will receive. They know what is right and wrong, which persuades them into what tyope of consequences they'd like to get.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it does prove god exist because of the morals that we have today. That we think that gods exist depending on occurring events. Like for example in the movie contact Ellie lost both of her parents and she thinks that if there was god why would he let this happen. If she didn't have morals about this we would have never of thought of God. It depends on what you believe in cause you have morals on what you believe.
ReplyDelete