The existence of God has been a controversial topic discussed by philosophers over many centuries. One of the arguments for God’s existence comes from the belief that the type of God that would exist is an all just and all-knowing supernatural being that has laid down objective moral laws for humans to follow. This is called the moral argument. In this paper I argue that the moral arguments does not stand against objections when trying to prove God’s existence. This paper has five parts beginning with a thorough outline and explanation of the moral argument (1). Next I will present four objections and the theists reply to them. First is that morality doesn’t depend on God’s existence only the belief in God (2). Second, that one cannot be truly …show more content…
An atheist may believe that chaos would ensue without the belief that there was a higher power to provide a moral code. However, this may not mean that there is an actual God. An example of this happening would be how “parents successfully regulate the behaviour of children by reminding them that Santa is not generous to children who misbehave” (Jacobsen 256). This shows that simply by telling children there is a Santa they want to act good, so if people have been told there is a God that will punish them if they misbehave then they will believe it. Furthermore this belief in God could have come into civilizations when a ruler wanted to gain complete control over people so he would insist that he had divine powers. In reply to this theist’s can bring up that this is a argument dismisses the probability that lies in the amount of people that believe. If there is a widespread belief in God then that would make it more likely that there is a God. Moreover theist’s can say a person might be aware of God’s laws without realizing that they are God’s laws so that God can exist and people can follow his objective moral values without knowing that is what they are, therefore God probably …show more content…
This is explained in writings by Immanuel Kant, he writes, “belief in a God who hands out rewards and punishments for our actions would render us incapable of doing something simply because it is the morally right thing to do. Instead, we would act in order to collect rewards or escape punishments” (Jacobson 257). This would prove the first premise wrong because it says that we need God to be fully moral but Kant argues that God stops us from being moral because we choose not to do bad so that we won’t get punished not because it is unjust or may hurt ourselves or others. Theist’s reply to this by presenting the notion that there are many people who do good because it is right to do so and to gain personal happiness. However, doing the moral thing sometimes causes one to sacrifice happiness. To make up for this there must be a God that establishes the rewards after acting morally puts one in an unpleasant