Moral Argument for the Existence of God

[Frrostedman]

Just wonderful: either no need for 'morality' or God created us with free will. Seriously?

Please see, as but one example, E. O. Wilson's …

• The Biological Basis of Morality - Part I
• The Biological Basis of Morality - Part II

Preferably after first reading False dilemma

Ah. More disdain I see. Well at least I know not to take it personally. What's with the rolling of the eyes? Kant's moral argument is not without merit and it's quite famous. You may disagree with it, but to merely roll your eyes and throw a magazine article on the table doesn't convince anyone that Kant had it wrong.

By the way. I'm quite accomplished as a shuffleboard player. I appreciate you giving me a little practice.

[tosses Reformation Study Bible on table and gives it a shove, sliding it across and knocking Jayhawker's magazine to the floor]

Below, Sproul simply explains Kant's so-called "Moral Argument." He doesn't defend it, but just explains it; brilliantly, as usual.

[youtube]D5UzLIwcqa0[/youtube]

 

[Frrostedman]

Just wonderful: either no need for 'morality' or God created us with free will. Seriously?

I couldn't edit this in, though I tried. I wanted to add that your summation of Kant's Moral Argument is a quite hideous strawman. Rest assured--if Kant's Moral Argument boiled down to what you said above, the entire world would have rolled its eyes at it. Instead, his argument made a huge splash in the world of philosophy and theology at the time. So much so, the Church was compelled to respond to it.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I would think that the question "can { X } exist without an Absolute, a divine perfect creator?" is unanswerable in the absence on a coherent definition of { X }.

Sure, and I wasn't trying to answer the question myself, just try to steer the discussion in the direction I thought the OP intended, but GK could be right on that one.

 

[wil]

Some discussions...when they lead down a road that just won't ever provide an answer suitable to all with their internal biases....I just Kant get into it.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Some discussions...when they lead down a road that just won't ever provide an answer suitable to all with their internal biases....I just Kant get into it.

hehe, oh you!

But, you're only interested in an answer that everyone agree with?

 

[wil]

nah...just Kant get into circular arguments....I don't Aquinas to put Descartes before the horse or Locke the barn after Aristotle got out, I''d rather a Plato Confucius.