Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The topic that is about to be brought up is highly debatable and though the twenty first century has reached its supremacy in technology, this subject still lies uncertain in many scholars and theologists’ minds. So, does God exist? There were many scholars to have tried to prove existence or non-existence of Divine Providence, though actual evidence is what people lack, unfortunately, while the religion claims that the greatest evidence is the faith. Therefore, there is no way out or clear conclusion on whether God really exists. Although such discussions may seem to be some kind of fictitious and unsupportive, it is highly important for the people to know and understand. First of all, the reason people have right to be aware of such discussions because religion is what invaded people’s consciousness greatly – and not always virtuously. Religion is a great power grasped by clergymen, priests, and ministers in order to gain control over huge masses of people. This essay will elaborate on Nagel’s argument against Kant’s argument for the existence of God in Defending Atheism.
The main point to discuss is Kant’s belief that God exists through moral values that people adhere to, that God guides them to these moral values, and hence grants utmost happiness. Whereas Nagel claimed that “The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God is thus postulated as a necessary condition for the possibility of a moral life” (Sober 144) but he immediately contradicts existence of God putting forward atheism and a need for evidences saying that moral is happiness according to Kant and happiness is highest good, however: “And though we may postulate God’s existence as a means to guaranteeing the possibility of realizing happiness together with virtue, the postulation establishes neither the actual realizability of this ideal nor the fact of his existence” (Sober 144). My opinion on this topic is God does exist otherwise people would be a bunch of poorly moralized animals. No emotions, no dignity, no virtues are what makes our lives empty. And, since I believe that we are all here for a reason, God gives us a privilege to experience morals and virtues they result in. We do not have to search for the highest peak of good; it is, in fact, unachievable, because there is no limit to good. God knows exactly what humanity needs, putting us through various moral hardships and eventually leading to the better outcomes than we, ourselves, could not have possibly imagined, always.
God’s Existence Supportive Opinion
Nagel does not agree with Kant that happiness and virtues should come in commensurate and this is what promoted the overall good, which in its turn could not be achieved because no one can measure its highest peak except God. And, hence Nagel could not agree with Kant’s opinion that the insurance of morality is God because being an atheist means necessity for evidences and simply saying that God is in us and we follow the morals because he granted us with it, was dubious for Nagel. I say that it is silly to look for highest good because once a person understands that he/she achieves commensurate of his/her virtues and happiness, this means that everything in his/her life is wonderful. Of course, getting to this point of understanding is completely individualized; various people take different time periods to comprehend the essentials of morals. However, no one can deny the fact that every person does it on his/her own, although maybe listening to some friends’ or parents’ advices, still a man comes up to the peak of own good when he/she personally feels it is time. And here, there is some other chemistry working rather than seeing, reading, touching Divine evidences. Of course, psychology has created special definitions for this state but it does not matter as long as the actual thing takes place in your life, you do not really care for how scholars call it.
Objection
Although people always know when the right time for such evaluation of happiness comes, still the rest of the world that consists of pragmatics, need more evidences. Besides, who said that being happy is always a limited thing? As we all know, humans tend to desire more and more if we are talking about something good. And this is the way we are – thirsty for happiness and knowing no limits. That is why saying that moral values are implemented into human’s lives by God is not fully fair because we can also rely on mere physical desires and morality is just a means to achieve whatever. Once a person reaches the goal, he/she is likely to leave morality to others knowing that he/she is rich enough (if it is money we are talking about as a goal) to ignore morality. Hence, moral virtues are not dictated by God – people are the ones to choose to either behave nicely or being an unmoral person. And God has nothing to do with ultimate good through morality.
Addressing the Objection
Unfortunately, the previous argument is so inconsistent and looks like a selfish person’s speech. However, we all know that conscience never sleeps and although the most “evil men frequently enjoy the best things this world has to offer” (Sober 144), all of us always estimate our deeds and reproach ourselves for bad actions. So, we always know what actions are bad and which ones are good. How do we know it? Morality is the answer. And it has nothing to do with good breeding because people can close their eyes to some life circumstances even being brought up in aristocratic family. What I am talking about is our inner switch that tells us what is good, what is bad, and what is impossible to be quite about. Therefore, no one really knows where such kind of evaluation comes from. Some say from logically based speculations, some deem it to be coming from the soul which I equalize to God Providence (Spitzer 278).
Conclusion
I agree with Kant that religion has to be percepted through inner self and own ability to follow moral values. Although we cannot postulate God to be the guarantee of our understanding of happiness, we can postulate God as a moral guide through the hardships of life which ultimately guarantees happiness and satisfaction. People are sometimes too down-to-earth to realize there is something above to guide through problems, though how many times have we asked for help in desperate dead-ends? And how many times have we actually looked back on life wondering how we could possibly go through this or that? People cannot be alone; there is a greater power above us that gives hints whenever we need it to.
Works Cited
Sober, Elliott. Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. Print.
Spitzer, Robert, J. New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.