Moral Argument for God

[GrowingSmaller]

In Dostoyevsky's book "The Brothers Karamazov" Ivan Karamazov says "If there is no God, then everything is permitted." We can validly conclude that there is a God by denying the consequent (aka modus tollens), in other words by denying that everything is permitted. "Everything is not permitted, therefore there must be a God!!!"

The above argument is deductively valid, meaning that if the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily true...but are the premises actually true?

I would question whether the first permise is true ie "If there is no God, then everything is permitted" (ie. ~G -> P) is probably false rather than the second "Everything is not permitted" (ie. ~P).

Anyway, more formally the argument looks like this:

~G -> P
~P
______
G

However Sartre seems to have attacked the second premise (~P) ie. he denied "Everything is not permitted":

Existentialism and Humanism Sartre quotes Dostoevskii's statement that "if God did not exist, everything would be permitted" and adds: "that, for existentialism, is the starting point" (p. 33).
Whether or not God does exist, it might be said, in Sartrean terms, "everything is permitted"—and that means that human beings are the source of value, choice, and responsibility.

source

What do you think?

 

[Gracchus]

Well, you're are right that the first premise is doubtful. The second is more than somewhat murky. "Permitted"? By whom? Maybe momma don't 'low no guitar playin' 'round here, but daddy does.

When you examine the first premise carefully, it seems to be more accurately stated: If a thing is permitted, then it must be God who permits it. that is just a not-too-obscure way of assuming as a premise what you are trying to prove.

 

[SithDoughnut]

None of it means anything until you define the criteria for something being 'permitted'. Are we talking man-made laws, physical laws, or something entirely different? That being said, you'd still then have to back up the first premise.

 

[quatona]

In Dostoyevsky's book "The Brothers Karamazov" Ivan Karamazov says "If there is no God, then everything is permitted." We can validly conclude that there is a God by denying the consequent (aka modus tollens), in other words by denying that everything is permitted. "Everything is not permitted, therefore there must be a God!!!"

The above argument is deductively valid, meaning that if the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily true...but are the premises actually true?

I would question whether the first permise is true ie "If there is no God, then everything is permitted" (ie. ~G -> P)

It´s not substantiated at all.

is probably false rather than the second "Everything is not permitted" (ie. ~P).

The use of the passive form always makes me suspicious. Such a sentence omits one of the most important bits of information: "by whom?". And typically people speak that way for a reason: Wording the statement in an active form would reveal its problems.

Where I live it "is not permitted" to drive more than 50km/h when in a town. I have absolutely no idea why such a restriction of the government would require the existence of a god. Some 50 years ago it "was not permitted" to harbour persecuted Jews, and I have no idea why this restriction would require the existence of a god.

As far as I can make sense of Karamzow´s statement it says nothing but: If there is no god then there is no god to prohibit anything. Which would be tautologically accurate, but doesn´t mean that there aren´t any other powerful instances or authorities who aren´t entirely permissive.

However Sartre seems to have attacked the second premise (~P) ie. he denied "Everything is not permitted":



What do you think?

Wouldn´t that rather have to be: Not everything is permitted?
I would have to read Sartre in context (and in the original language) but as it reads here I would certainly disagree with his statement. There are things that aren´t permitted. Factually and demonstrably.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If you define God as

that whatever it is exactly that makes us feel that not everything is permitted​

then the argument is OK.

Toss in the God of the ontological argument(s) and mystical experiences and you have a nifty trinity.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If you define God as

that whatever it is exactly that makes us feel that not everything is permitted
​

then the argument is OK.

Toss in the God of the ontological argument(s) and mystical experiences and you have a nifty trinity.

lol

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would have to read Sartre in context (and in the original language) but as it reads here I would certainly disagree with his statement. There are things that aren´t permitted. Factually and demonstrably.

I think if the reading of Sartre is right we do prohibit some things but that wis a result of our freedom where we can do anything we like.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

None of it means anything until you define the criteria for something being 'permitted'. Are we talking man-made laws, physical laws, or something entirely different?

I agree that's the vital point.

 

[quatona]

I think if the reading of Sartre is right we do prohibit some things but that wis a result of our freedom where we can do anything we like.

So these things are permitted but aren´t permitted.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In Dostoyevsky's book "The Brothers Karamazov" Ivan Karamazov says "If there is no God, then everything is permitted." We can validly conclude that there is a God by denying the consequent (aka modus tollens), in other words by denying that everything is permitted. "Everything is not permitted, therefore there must be a God!!!"

Permitted (definition A): Ethically permitted. If it is wrong to do X, then X is not permitted(A). (Rape is ethically wrong, and therefore not permitted.)

Permitted (definition B): Divinely permitted. If it is divinely forbidden to do X, then X is not permitted(B). (Rape is a sin, and therefore not permitted by God, which could mean an eternity in Hell as punishment.)

Let's not equivocate!

Ethically permitted:
Disagreed: If there is no God, then everything is permitted(A).
Agreed: Not everything is permitted(A).

Since I disagree with the first statement, agreement with the second poses no problem for me as an atheist. Non-divine ethics is possible, IMJ, and I approve of ethics.

Divinely permitted:
Agreed: If there is no God, then everything is permitted(B).
Disagreed: Not everything is permitted(B).

We can't know that the second statement is true or false, so nothing can be concluded about God. Given the lack of evidence of divine punishment, then taking this as a default belief, it seems that "there is no God" has no challenge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok, what about Kant's argument from the necessity of moral justice? It goes something like this:

Justice dictates thet good must be rewarded and evil punished.
That does not happen in this life.
Therefore there must be a future state (afterlife) where a perfect and powerful judge (God) can dispense justice.

Maybe a little idealistic of him?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok, what about Kant's argument from the necessity of moral justice? It goes something like this:

Justice dictates thet good must be rewarded and evil punished.
That does not happen in this life.
Therefore there must be a future state (afterlife) where a perfect and powerful judge (God) can dispense justice.

Maybe a little idealistic of him?

I smell Plato's stinky sandles.

Justice is a virtue, and it is a virtue that we ought to practice, but that doesn't mean that it "must" exist somewhere in perfect form. No guide to behavior must be followed perfectly in order to be applicable to human life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Justice dictates thet good must be rewarded and evil punished.

Says who?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Says who?

I thought that was Kants opinion? See this link to see a summary of the argument on the "Philosophy of Religion" website.

 

[Tinker Grey]

When we say "justice requires", isn't that just obfuscatory for "we would like it to be so"?

 

[Chesterton]

When we say "justice requires", isn't that just obfuscatory for "we would like it to be so"?

I prefer "I require", which is entirely clear for "I would like it to be so".

 

[SithDoughnut]

Ok, what about Kant's argument from the necessity of moral justice? It goes something like this:

Justice dictates thet good must be rewarded and evil punished.
That does not happen in this life.

Kant had evidently never heard of the judicial system then.

Therefore there must be a future state (afterlife) where a perfect and powerful judge (God) can dispense justice.

Maybe a little idealistic of him?

Pretty much. Justice is not some kind of objective, external source of judgement. It's a human, or possibly animal, concept. There is no evidence that the universe is geared towards dispensing justice at all, nor that justice has to happen.

 

[TheUnwanted]

I think the clear flaw in this logic is the implied claim that since morals exist, God exists.

Show me a moral...

 

[JonF]

I never liked this argument. I also think it’s fairly easy to deny the first premise. You can even construct moral systems that are deontologies that aren’t directly predicate of God and have some pretty strong evidence in the favor. Check out Kant’s categorical imperative for example.

You’re first premise is also logical equivalent to if anything isn’t permitted then there is a God. There are plenty of examples someone could strongly argue are not morally permissible that don’t imply the existence of God. For example, unjustified killing is pretty much a cultural universal, or theft.

 

[JonF]

Show me a moral...

Show me barometric pressure, quasars, gravitational attraction, elasticity, radio activity, natural laws, names, grammar, numbers... There are plenty of things that exist you can't "show". Bahnsen coined this as the “cracker in the pantry” fallacy.