The proof is from morality.
In the fourth notebook, you provide proof that there is a dependence between the claims “moral judgment has meaning” and “God exists.”
It seems that only two possibilities have been raised that allow for the existence of morality: subjective morality and (let’s call it) “divine” morality. I think there is a third possibility that would also allow for meaning in moral judgment.
It is possible that there is a fixed system of laws, perhaps we could even call it primordial, and according to which morality is determined and according to which we can judge what is a moral act. I don’t think we need to say that God created this system of laws…
Or did you mean that it has no binding force on us if it was created by God?
Indeed. The fact that there are laws does not mean that I will obey them or that I must obey them. This is the naturalistic fallacy. Beyond that, even if such laws exist, there is room for the question of who or what created them? And even if they are ancient, I explained that there is the principle of sufficient reason.
The question is also why you give it validity.
You could theoretically ask this of God as well. But if it's an arbitrary book, it sounds to most people like something less convincing than God.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
