CS Lewis's Moral Argument and the Existence of a God

Objective morality is morality that does not match the preference of commonly accepted human. If a person agrees with these two assumptions, they will reach the given conclusion. But for those who are not theologians, they can maintain their distrust by not agreeing with one or both of Lewis triangulation theory. In other words, in a nutshell, Lewis believes that moral law exists and that God is the founder of the law. It also means that people who do not believe in God do not have moral value, as CS Lewis's first argument that God must exist to have moral value.

The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a multidimensional series of arguments, from the particular characteristics of moral or moral life to the existence of God, often understood as a morally good creator of the universe . Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with in meta ethics. They are important because they occupy an important position in people's defense theory for religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in an amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality.

In his book "Big Divorce" published in 1945, CS Lewis announced this statement and I was thinking and thinking about moral argument and Euthyphro's dilemma on the desk. Lewis found a good truth here, but it is not a fact, because God does not say this, God says things are good, because they are good. Instead, God wants what he wants and he is being told that he is good. Indeed, when we possess him and he is our treasure, I repeat that he is good.

Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection?