Moral Beliefs and Arguments for the Existence of God - Essay Sample

Introduction

Various arguments tend to explain the existence of God. These are moral believes for the presence of God from an extensive family of cases that comes from some characteristics of moral beliefs of humankind (Van 159). Moral convictions are very crucial and very interesting since they attempt to evaluate their soundness that requires more attention in the aspect of philosophical issues. They are fundamental due to their prominence in common apologetic beliefs. Several ordinary people view religion in a perspective that provides a basis for morality. This belief tends to favor religious arguments in the aspect of morality but not in the point of moral reasoning. The apparent link between religious beliefs and morality exists in several individuals to support their opinions that moral reality requires a spiritual basis or can well be explained by the existence of God. Several forms of noble argument attempt to answer the question of whether God exists, where a fundamental distinction is in the arguments that are theoretical in their nature and ethical cases that are pragmatic.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Before we begin to discuss the moral arguments for the existence of God, it is imperative to have in mind the perspective on the objectives of the claim of God's presence. Perceptions about this are vast, where several contemporary proponents of this kind of demand do not view theistic argument as proof. This is a standard of achievement that precisely sets the bar successful and proponent of theistic claims on the existence of God (Arp 194). A person can ask a reasonable question of whether there are real arguments for the proof that God exists. Are there premises of this kind of claim that is more reasonable? Arguments that met this level could have a particular standard in making various belief in God reasonable for specific individuals. This argument also provides knowledge for the existence of God, although it turns out that several believers can reasonably deny particular premises for the claims.

It is possible not to note that moral arguments for God's existence could give some proof on the presence of God in the aspect that the case higher the possibility of the claim of God's existence. However, this argument fails to give sufficient evidence for the claim that God exists. A very critical issue that is had to be settled entails the question of where the burden of proof exists with the theistic arguments (Arp 198). Another means to criticize the presumption of atheism is by questioning an implicit belief made by individuals who tend to defend this kind of hypothesis. This kind of assumption is epistemologically based on the views of God, which is very risky than unbelief. The theist claims that each object in the natural environment exists since God conserves that particular object.

In the history for the argument of God's existence, Aquinas claims that specific people who have qualities of being right or noble, there exist gradations. This argument means some things are better than others, while some generous individuals are more reputable than others. Aquinas tends to claim that when people grade stuff in this particular manner, they are implicit (Arp 132). Furthermore, Aquinas argues that the standard cannot be merely hypothetical and, therefore, this kind of graduation is possible, mainly when there exist some beings who have this quality. Aquinas further stresses that this particular being, which gives the standard is the primary reason for the existence of this kind of condition, and thus the leading cause must be God. The basic influential version that entails the moral argument in trust of God's existence can be traced to Kant, who claimed that the theoretical debates on the presence of God were fruitless.

Kant stands with the claims that an individual can never rationally have a will, having not believed in moral actions. This argument needs a belief that the real structure of nature is very friendly for the better of this result by ethical means. This is like believing in God, a moral being who is accountable for the natural environment. Philosophy has established divine command, which has resulted in new versions of the moral claim (Insole and Kant 26). Although it is significant to observe that there is a version for a proper application for the existence of God, which is independent in the divine of the command theory. The theoretical moral request for the presence of God can be well understood in the aspect of variation of the goal of moral facts, probably God exists and that God gives the basis for the explanation of the existence of the goals of moral facts.

The standard version on theistic moral claim lies based on the analogy between moral laws and human laws. A sovereign nation enforces laws that make various actions to be required or even forbidden. Several individuals claim that there exist moral laws that bind people in the same manner as the administrative rules do. People can establish how human laws come into existence, and they are implemented by individuals who have the authority to create laws (Arp 3). Therefore, it seems very plausible to several people that the only being to satisfy this role is God. However, several philosophers have dismissed this kind of claim, which they view as crude since it is force is so general thus does not require superior training. If a person claims that there is God and that God expects people to know him, hence everyone would have expectations that God would make it a reality to know Him.

Moreover, if the moral obligations are the reality for the truth of the commands of God and the divine laws, thus the typical person who is conversant with the ethical commitments fails to possess God's awareness. This type of person, maybe knowing the laws of God without establishing that they are God's laws. On occasions where the moral rules are experienced, thus the excellent experience might be seen as a type of religious experience (Insole and Kant 230). The reformed epistemologists bare in their minds the claims on the beliefs of God. It is essential to identify that there could exist knowledge about God that is entrenched in a pleasant experience without considering this knowledge as an outcome of moral argument. However, a moral argument can still play a fundamental role in the aspect that this kind of evidence can be a mean of assisting a person in comprehending moral obligations.

As noted earlier, the fundamental influential for the first argument version that explains the existence and beliefs of God is established by Kant. Kant reveals that his claim was not a theoretical argument but rather an argument that is based on the ground of practical facts and reasons. This argument explains that Kant believes in the circumstances that God exists. His version of the case can be defined in various ways. The morality can be grounded in unadulterated practical reasons, while the moral agent should act on the aspect of maxims that can be rationally supported as global universal. Moral actions are not necessarily based on the outcome but rather by the maxims on which they are grounded (Insole and Kant 236). The problem with this kind of argument is that several individuals will tend to deny the fact that morality expects people to look into the highest good in Kant's logic.

However, the theoretical facts have not been used to affirm the existence of God, and it is crucial to think of the natural environment that has had the type of features the world would possess if God did exist. Therefore, if a rational basis for the belief in the existence of God originates from a practical basis, the theoretical basis will induce no objection (Van 135). In my thought, I find it hard to establish a particular version of an argument that constitutes real evidence for the existence of God. This is because every version of the moral argument has premises that may cause reasonable thinkers to reject. Although this concept does not mean that this kind of discussion and belief has no force. A person might think of every version of the moral argument as if they tend to spell out the price of failing to admit the concept drawn from the conclusion.

From the discussion above, numerous arguments tend to explain the existence of God. These arguments consist of moral beliefs for the presence of God from a broad family of arguments that comes from some characteristics of morality and beliefs of humankind. Therefore, it is very likely not note that moral arguments for God's existence could give some evidence on the existence of God in the aspect that the case higher the likelihood of the claim of God's presence. Kant's attitudes are based on the claims that an individual can never rationally have a will, having not believed in moral actions. This argument requires a belief in the real structure of the nature that is very friendly for the better of this outcome by ethical means. Although, I find it very hard to establish a particular version of an argument that constitutes real proof for the existence of God. This is because every version of the moral argument has premises that may result in reasonable thinkers to reject them.

Works Cited

Arp, Robert. Revisiting Aquinas' Proofs for the Existence of God. Leiden: Brill Rodopi, 2016. Print.

Insole, Christopher J. Kant and the Creation of Freedom: A Theological Problem. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.

Van, Inwagen P. The Problem of Evil: The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of St. Andrews in 2003. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2012. Print.