Introduction: This article aims to understand the very moral basis for explaining the existence of god. It deals with the essential dynamics of the unsurpassable divine mind which is omnipresent and omniscient from using the moral lens to view and explain his persistent existence in this cosmological universe. “You will probably feel two desires — one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help and suppress the impulse to run away.” ~ C.S. Lewis. We endeavor to understand this third voice within us which is daunting, decorating and defining various essential life outcomes.
Main explanation: Let me start with a question here, can you be good without believing in the existence of god? The answer to this question is simple, that you can truly be virtuous by performing your duty to the fullest manner- “to do one’s own is the ultimate duty of a person” contends Plato. But, if i change the question a little more, and ask you all to answer that, “Can you be good without god altogether being there?” The moralists would say that it is a resounding NO, to be good in such a circumstance since there are numerous layers of intersubjectivity and personal notions attached to the notion of “being good” otherwise, if we do not have god. The simple fact that I would like to highlight at this very moment is pertaining to the aspect that God in itself becomes the ultimate measure of all things in this universe. I would like to highlight what Hegelian dialogue Had mentioned earlier in there dichotomized Version of philosophy, he said that in the master slave relationship, there are two independent self-consciousness who fights in order to prove that they are the ultimate measure of all the things in this universe, which roughly means that their emotions, feelings, behaviors, thinking pattern as well as their moral values which have been upheld, practiced and professed by them are to be held as the universal measure of all the things. This mechanism has two important words in it University and objectivity. This means that if you are a human who is living in this universe, that means your behavior you’re thinking pattern and your actions would be judged by this particular person’s ideas, behavior, basically this person will be acting as the scale over which your behavior is to be measured either which will result in the behavior being close to good or distant from being appreciative. But when we talk about the moral argument, we are not having any master slave relationship because God and the follower of religion is not coming in contact with each other to rule over each other, but to become each other to form into the ultimate unity with the God, the point that we have to highlight from the above mentioned expression is simply that in this case that is the case of the moral argument we will be Posting the God at the position of ultimate supreme measure of all the things. A question which comes quite often when formulating such a discussion is that whether the God wills These things because these things are good, or is it the case that, Because these things are good, simply by the virtue of fact that they are being willed by the God? The answer to this particular question is very simple; God does not Wills these actions or these attributes of being good noble, charitable enchanted, rather God himself is this attribute. God himself is having in possession, all of these noble virtuous attributes within his nature and characteristics significantly- This is the reason why we assert that God is the ultimate universal scale to measure everyone’s behavior. Let’s see if your behavior or the action which you have performed in a particular space and time is to be measured whether it is virtuous or discouraging. We can use the simple formula which is given by the moral argument and that is, we have to measure whether our action is in close conformity and near to the consonants of the attribute of the God – The closer our action is with the attribute, the better the action is. This defines our whole problem and gives us the solution in the most efficient manner possible.
Let us break this argument a little further, in order to get a clear picture of what this proof suggests. It tells the lame and that God himself is the ultimate universal as well as the objective scale through which any person in this universe will measure any of his actions to either be declared as good or to be categorized as unethical, The God himself is that objective scale. And in the situations when we believe that God himself is not existing, it is an abstract theoretically made concept. It’s not exist in reality. Then the problem lies. It is in such situations when we say that if God doesn’t exist the idea of good the idea of moral claims the idea of actions, are to be determined, defined and decorated by what I believe is to be true – By the virtue of the fact that what I think is ethical and what I declare to be as unethical that will formulate the guidelines for ethics, morality, and virtue in the society. But I am just one singular person or at max a big group, but I am not within myself millions and billions of the population of this universe. Imagine if all those millions and billions of people in this world develop this idea of what I say is true. What I believe is correct. What I think is the ultimate important thing, then we will be having millions and billions of ideas pertaining to ethics related to morals. There will be a chaotic moral relativism in such situations. How can we solve this particular problem then? To solve this inter subjectivity which I have highlighted in the introduction of this article, we bring in the concept of God. Let’s take for example in the case of Hinduism or Christianity, there are Vedas as well as the commandments within those religious texts. These commandments act as the basic foundation, the fundamental block, for formulating our morals and virtuous actions. In order to explain this a little further, I would like to again quote: “CS Lewis when he says that there is a voice within us that tells us to perform a particular action, even though it will not directly benefit or materially profitable to our subjective requirements and we still continue to do that action with utmost sincerity, then it means that we cannot find the ultimate forum of such laws in the nature. There has to be a supernatural lawgiver, and in this case, it the God” CONCLUSION: We have Newman, Who believes that our conscience always tells us the difference between right and wrong. The segregation between virtuous and actions which are distant from being virtuous in order to have an authority over the cons over these moral laws and rules, we have to have God. We have the famous Emanuel Kant; this German philosopher say that the ultimate goal of the human being is to be virtuous, remain happy, content and trail, and also enjoy the same things in the afterlife in order to provide with such things in order to have all these things, the existence of God, he says, is there.
We have a small logical argument as well within this thing, which could be formulated as per the following manner: P1: If God does not exist, then all of the moral virtues actions do not exist P2: Since all the moral actions and virtues are existing Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist.
