John Henry Newman's Moral Argument from Conscience for the Existence of God

The "Theologism" of Duns Scotus: (Part II)

Theism, that is, belief in the existence of God, has, over the last forty or so years, been making a quiet comeback. Whereas for several decades the “death of God” was heralded—culminating, perhaps, with Time magazine’s April 8, 1966, title: “Is God Dead?”—philosophers are once again vigorously debating the rationality of theistic belief. Emerging from amid this renaissance is an increasing number of publications treating the various so-called “theistic proofs” or arguments for God’s existence. These arguments are part of the project of natural theology, that is, the project of establishing the rationality of theistic belief apart from appeal to authoritative divine revelation. One such argument, called the axiological argument or the moral argument, attempts to establish the existence of God a posteriori from the existence of objective moral values. It is the aim of this thesis to defend the moral argument from atheist Michael Martin, one of its most distinguished detractors. Not surprisingly, many atheists have attempted to refute the moral argument. Many (if not most) atheists, such as the late J. L. Mackie, simply reject the objectivity of morals, embracing instead moral relativism. Contemporary atheist Richard Dawkins goes so far as to deny the reality of good and evil altogether. What makes Martin’s response particularly interesting, however, is his moral realism or his agreement that objective morals do exist. The issue, then, is whether Martin’s worldview furnishes him with the metaphysical resources necessary to ground objective morality while denying God’s existence. It is, of course, one thing to see that morality is objective and another thing altogether to ground that fact. I will argue that Martin’s worldview does not provide him the underpinnings necessary to sustain his position, thus rebutting his attack on the moral argument.

Ahmed Ziyauddin GumushanevT, who lived in the 19th century, is one of the major Sufis. In this paper, we try to examine his views on knowing God’s existence. According to the divine religions, it is possible for human being to know God’s existence; because such an ability has been given to him by in his creation. Because of the fact that, getting the knowledge God’s existence has a great importance in the thought of philosophers, theologians and Sufis, as well, they claim that God can be known either by reason, sense-data or by intuition and try to explain how it is so. Gumushanevi holds that reason can acquire the knowledge of God’s existence by using the signs in the universe. But, for him only reason can’t get that knowledge properly. God can be known by the help of heart, which is called sixth sense, in a proper sense

When people encounter an argument for or against God's existence, it often raises more questions than it answers. In Letters to Doubting Thomas, C. Stephen Layman offers a fresh, insightful approach to the issue of God's existence--a way to organize what can seem like a blizzard of claims and concepts--bringing clarity to a debate often mired in confusion. Layman explores the evidence for the existence of God in a series of fictionalized letters between two characters--Zachary, a philosopher, and Thomas, an old college friend who appeals to Zach for help in sorting out his thoughts about God. As their correspondence grows, Zachary leads Thomas through an informal and highly readable comparison of Naturalism (the belief that there is no God and that ultimate reality is physical reality), and Theism (the idea that there is an almighty, perfectly good God). In engaging letters that break down complex philosophical arguments into easily digestible bits, the two friends delve into such weighty topics as the reliability of religious experience, various arguments for God's existence (such as the cosmological, design, and moral arguments), the question of free will, and the problem of evil. A piece at a time, they build an argument that shows that Theism, on balance, provides a better explanation of the world and human life than does Naturalism. Here then is a highly accessible account of the major arguments for and against the existence of God, capturing some of the best new insights of modern philosophy in a marvelously clear and engaging format.

One of the questions that is often debated is about the existence of God. In Indonesian culture, a person who was born must have been indoctrinated with the teachings of a particular religion which also includes belief in their respective religion's version of God. Questions about the existence of God can lead someone to negative accusations. Some people will answer that God is in the human heart, so his existence is not to be questioned but must be believed. This kind of argument has many weaknesses. The researcher used a data collection method through qualitative research, while in the data processing method and drawing conclusions, the author used an inductive method, namely a reasoning process that starts from specific circumstances to general circumstances. In proving the existence of God logically, there are at least four arguments, namely the ontological argument which is based on human reason, the cosmological argument which is based on natural phenomena, the teleological argument which is based on goals, and the moral argument which is based on morality. It can be known that everything that is enormous about which we cannot think any bigger is God, so God must exist. Anselm's argument was very influential in the history of thought regarding evidence for the existence of God. He presents evidence that is logical in nature because it starts from the assumption that there is something so great that there is nothing greater and that existence is part of that greatness, so it will automatically exist. Usually, Christian theologians only arrive at ontological arguments to prove the existence of God but rarely carry out reconstructions of it. In this article, the proof of God's existence is explained not only from an ontological aspect, but also a reconstruction of the argument.Keywords: ontology, Anselm; God Existence; logical proof; ontology reconstruction AbstrakSalah satu pertanyaan yang sering diperdebatkan adalah tentang eksistensi Tuhan. Dalam budaya di Indonesia, seseorang yang lahir pasti sudah didoktrin dengan ajaran agama tertentu yang didalamnya terkandung juga kepercayaan kepada Tuhan versi agamanya masing-masing. Pertanyaan atas keberadaan Tuhan dapat membawa seseorang kepada tuduhan yang negatif. Beberapa orang akan menjawab bahwa Tuhan ada dalam hati manusia, sehingga keberadaannya bukan untuk dipertanyakan tetapi harus diyakini. Argumen seperti ini memiliki banyak sekali kelemahan. Peneliti menggunakan metode pengumpulan data melalui penelitian kualitatif, sedangkan dalam metode pengolahan data dan penarikan kesimpulan, penulis menggunakan metode induktif, yaitu proses penalaran yang bermula dari keadaan khusus menuju keadaan umum. Dalam pembuktian tentang keberadaan Tuhan secara logis, setidaknya ada empat argumen, yaitu argumen ontologis yang berbasis kepada akal manusia, argumen kosmologis yang berbasis kepada fenomena alam, argumen teleologis yang berbasis kepada tujuan, serta argumen moral yang berbasis kepada moralitas. Dapat diketahui bahwa segala sesuatu yang maha besar yang terhadapnya kita tidak bisa pikirkan lebih besar lagi itu adalah Tuhan, maka Tuhan itu pasti ada. Argumen Anselmus ini sangat berpengaruh dalam sejarah pemikiran mengenai bukti adanya Tuhan. Dia menyajikan suatu bukti yang sifatnya logis karena berangkat dengan pengandaian bahwa ada sesuatu yang maha besar yang tidak ada yang lebih besar lagi dan keberadaan itu adalah bagian dari kebesaran itu maka otomatis dia tentunya akan ada. Biasanya, para teolog Kristen hanya sampai pada argumen ontologis untuk membuktikan keberadaan Tuhan namun jarang yang melakukan rekonstruksi terhadapnya. Dalam tulisan ini, pembuktian tentang keberadaan Tuhan dijelaskan bukan hanya dari aspek ontologis, tetapi juga rekonstruksi terhadap argumen tersebut.Kata-kata kunci: ontologis; Anselmus; eksistensi Tuhan; pembuktian logis; rekonstruksi ontologis

This essay tries to show that there exist several passages whereKierkegaard (and his pseudonyms) sketches an argument for the existence of God and immortality that is remarkably similar toKant's so‐called moral argument for the existence of God and immortality. In particular,Kierkegaard appears to followKant's moral argument both when it comes to the form and content of the argument as well as some of its terminology. The essay concludes that several passages inKierkegaard overlap significantly withKant's moral argument, althoughKierkegaard ultimately favors revealed faith over natural theology in general andKant's moral faith in particular. WhereasKant uses the moral argument to postulate the existence of God and immortality,Kierkegaard mainly uses it as areductio ad absurdumof non‐religious thinking.

In his recent book, renowned American philosopher James Sterba puts forward an ‘ethical argument’ against the existence of God [Sterba, 2019], arguing for the logical incompatibility of the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God with the existence of moral evil we encounter in the world. This argument marks a new stage in the evolution of the so-called 'problem of evil' in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion, shifting from a discussion of metaphysical and epistemological aspects of the problem to ethical ones. Sterba offers a theoretical justification for the 'theological premise' of the atheistic argument from evil, relying on the Pauline principle that one should not do evil for the good that may come from it, from which he concludes that an all-powerful and all-good God would be obliged to prevent certain kinds of moral evil that are actually found in our world. The paper is aimed to critical evaluation of Sterba's argument by means of logical-conceptual analysis, showing that the key premise of Sterba's argument, according to which Pauline principle applies equally to any rational agent, is controversial, because there is a good reason to believe that God is related to moral norm in a different way than His creation is. The first section examines Sterba's ethical argument in support of the incompatibility of God's existence and existence of certain kinds of moral evil in the world. The second section shows that his strategy of refuting the main anti-atheist counterarguments offered by free will apology, soul-making theodicy, and skeptical theism, while not without merit, is not entirely satisfactory. The third section discusses the problem of the divine moral agency, raised by Sterba within his polemic with classical theism. The fourth section demonstrates that the key premise on which Sterba relies in his argument is controversial because it ignores the nature of the divine moral agency.

An examination of the cognitive foundations of intuitions about the existence and attributes of God. Questions about the existence and attributes of God form the subject matter of natural theology, which seeks to gain knowledge of the divine by relying on reason and experience of the world. Arguments in natural theology rely largely on intuitions and inferences that seem natural to us, occurring spontaneously—at the sight of a beautiful landscape, perhaps, or in wonderment at the complexity of the cosmos—even to a nonphilosopher. In this book, Helen De Cruz and Johan De Smedt examine the cognitive origins of arguments in natural theology. They find that although natural theological arguments can be very sophisticated, they are rooted in everyday intuitions about purpose, causation, agency, and morality. Using evidence and theories from disciplines including the cognitive science of religion, evolutionary ethics, evolutionary aesthetics, and the cognitive science of testimony, they show that these intuitions emerge early in development and are a stable part of human cognition. De Cruz and De Smedt analyze the cognitive underpinnings of five well-known arguments for the existence of God: the argument from design, the cosmological argument, the moral argument, the argument from beauty, and the argument from miracles. Finally, they consider whether the cognitive origins of these natural theological arguments should affect their rationality.

This article explores Christian philosophical views regarding the existence of God through an analysis of various main arguments that have been developed by Christian philosophers. Focusing on ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, this article explores how each argument attempts to prove the existence of God through rational and empirical approaches. Ontological arguments, such as those proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, use conceptual reflection to conclude that God must exist. The cosmological argument, popularized by Thomas Aquinas, combines observations of the universe with the logic of causality to demonstrate the existence of a transcendent first cause. The teleological argument, with a major contribution from William Paley, suggests that the complexity and order in the universe indicates the existence of an intelligent designer. Apart from that, this article also highlights the importance of religious experience as subjective evidence of the existence of God. Through a combination of rational argument and spiritual experience, Christian philosophy offers a comprehensive and insightful view of God's existence, making it relevant in contemporary theological and philosophical discussions.

There are times when a shadow could be a reflection of reality. The existence of man denotes that the Supreme Being creates humankind and from the writer's perspective, over the years, the logical questions centre on the existence of God. Verifiably, man's existence is traceable to the biological evidence at birth, and the question is who is God and how does He come into being? The thrust of the paper is to discuss the rationale behind a Christian's faith in God, attempting to answer the question of the self-existence of God from philosophical and theological perspectives as a means of authenticating the doctrine of God concerning biblical justifications on the self-existence of God. The sovereignty of God is understood to mean that He is independent. The paper argues and alludes that the Word aseity comes from the Latin phrase a se, meaning ‘from’ or ‘by himself’. Aseity is arguably the most fundamental divine characteristic of God; the Church fathers acknowledged the role of philosophy in the doing of theology; this is established by discussing the interplay of philosophy and theology, with many considering that philosophy is significant to the theological appraisal of aseity. Philosophical arguments on the existence of God revolve around four major arguments, including the ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments and moral arguments. Theological assessment of the notion of divine aseity from a Christian perspective in the African context is traceable to the Africans' knowledge of God and the existence of God. This paper concludes that God is the most powerful being; it is only in God's existence that all things are meaningful and explainable; the paper also admits that God is self-sufficient and self-existent because He exists from nothing but His power and wisdom are eternal. Admittedly there are notable arguments for God's existence, including cosmological and ontological arguments. The sovereignty of God is understood to mean that He is independent, meaning that He depends on no one to survive. The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof that substantiates man's conviction about the divine aseity of God, and objectively, the concept of the doctrine God depicts that God's attribute has been defined as the core of a theological system of God.

In the philosophy lectures of Fyodor Golubinsky (1797–1854)one can find among others the section “Ethical-theological Argument for God’s Existence according to Kant”. It is interesting that the Russian philosopher and theologian should take this ethical argument from Kant’s philosophy, seeing that it was unpopular at that time. Golubinsky goes as far as to shield Kant’s ethics from charges of egoism and prove that it is oriented against egoism. Kant’s argument for God’s existence is founded only upon his ethics since theoretical reason cannot prove God’s existence, but practical reason can. In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant claims that God is a regulative idea of reason, which has special meaning as a postulate in practical reason. This postulate arises when we speak about the Guarantor that can satisfy the main human requirement – achieving beatitude and, through it, moral perfection. Kant proves this by reasoning from people’s experience, namely that virtue during a person’s lifetime is not rewarded with corresponding happiness. Therefore, the one who can achieve this must exist. Golubinskiy took this reasoning as a proof of God’s existence. At first, he gives a free account whose original source is unknown, and then he gives two quotes from Kant’s works. Here it is important to understand two things: 1) the adequacy of this reception and 2) the source of Golubinsky’s free account. It is necessary therefore to compare Kant’s arguments for God’s existence which are given in his three Critiques with Golubinsky’s free account and try to reach clarity on these points.

The article examines the conceptualization and presentation of arguments defending the existence of God in the works of prominent Indian Renaissance thinkers – Rammohan Roy, Swami Dayananda, and Swami Vivekananda. During this period, the concept of God evolved into the universal ideal. The emerging theological discourse was inherently crosscultural, incorporating the task of arguing for God’s existence. Rammohan Roy, regarded as the founder of Hindu reformation, articulates a defense of God’s existence by emphasizing the unity of the divine across all religious traditions. Swami Dayananda, a proponent of Vedic teachings, engages in polemical debates with Indian atheistic schools and representatives of Abrahamic religions to affirm the existence of God. Swami Vivekananda, addressing the Western audience accustomed to the authority of scientific knowledge, seeks to reconcile spiritual and empirical paradigms to demonstrate the existence of God. Applying comparative historical and hermeneutic methods, this study identifies a recurring tendency among these thinkers to employ teleological arguments in their philosophical discourse. The article concludes that, under the influence of the surrounding cultural environment, the works of the neovedantists exhibit correlates of arguments for the existence of God – developed within the European tradition (such as the cosmological, moral, and religious experience arguments) – which vary in their degree of similarity.

The philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries gave birth to the idea of atheism. Modern atheist figures include Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud and Jean-Paul Sartre. The denial of God presented by each of the 19th and 20th century figures has his own arguments and context. According to Feurbach God is the creation of human delusion. Karl Marx, religion is the opium of the people. Nietzsche, God is dead. Sigmund Freud, religion according to his psychological nature is an illusion. Sartre, the existence of God is nothingness. The denial of God by modern scientists does not mean not to believe in the existence of God at all, but they just have put aside the existence of God. The scientists deny the existence of God with mean to awaken, awaken the religious human beings of the social condition

Previous articleNext article No AccessAnother Look at God and MoralitySteven L. RossSteven L. Ross Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 94, Number 1Oct., 1983 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/292511 Views: 6Total views on this site Copyright 1983 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The New Atheists: the Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion. By Tina Beattie