There Is A Moral Proof Of God!

The method is as in formal debate: since I am Prop I must prove my claim, you as Opp must show weaknesses in my claim, if you make a counter argument (morals are subjective, morals are based on society) then you must give evidence. One must first refute and then answer back if they wish. No ad hominem, try to avoid fallacies (and simply pointing out fallacies is not a refutation). Last of all: I hope you have fun! (for that is the most important part) Let me tell you about Kant's Moral Proof of God. It so entails that: 1. If morality is objective, then there is a God. 2. Morality is objective 3. There is a God Let us start by proving the first premise: that if morals were objective they would come from God. Firstly we understand that if morals are objective then they would surpass the boundaries of time and space, therefore their source would have to transcend the boundaries of time and space: such an identity can be God alone. Also let us understand that absolute morals would entail an absolute identity behind them: that identity would be God. A second argument for this will be fitted in the explanation of the next premise. Now on to the second premise: morals are objective. Before giving the philosophical argument I believe this premise can be understood through common sense. In a strict sense we already believe that there are certain absolute morals. However our opponent would contest that no morals are absolute, lest he except that there is a God. So our opponent must show when it is moral to rape a 5 year old girl, he must show when it is all right to murder a child, delineate to us when it may be justifiable to genocide. For if there is anything which is an absolute moral it would prove God. However let us give the philosophical proof. We urge our opponent to read David Hume so not to make the mistake of thinking that which "is" is that which "ought". For if he thinks this he is making a claim, which he must defend with an argument. Let us though come back to the premise. The first argument is that the goal of morals is summum bonum. In simpler words the goal of morals is to make a person so, that happiness arises out of virtue, for only then there is justice. That when you do a good thing you are happy to do good. One does goodness for goodness' sake. Now no man can ensure that this happens. No one but God can ensure that if, let us say, I am acting moral then I achieve the summum bonum, this can only be given to me by God. Only God can allow infinite justice, can reward me so that my happiness stems from virtue. The second argument is that we cannot construct morals. If you try to understand the current "is" of morals then it is deeply connected to some previous morals. I contest that man other than empirical knowledge has only innate knowledge, and this knowledge of morality is innate. The idea of virtue is innate so it must be that not only does a soul exist, but it carries the algorithms of absolute morals. As for how we come to the modern morals it is through imagination. Imagination if viewed rationally has its bases in the "dying view of reality". All of our modern moral constructs stem from some original, absolute morals. I believe I have sufficiently shown that morals are indeed absolute. If they are not let our opponent first show when it is all right to rape a 5 year old, and then give a logical counter argument, or point out a fallacy. Now that we have shown that absolute morals would prove a God, and that morals are absolute, ergo God exists. As for whether it was my God (Allah), Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna, that is a separate matter, the debate was meant to argue the existence of God: the existence is sufficiently proven. Ajab PS. A larger explanation, argument is provided by me here (this is not included in the argument you only have to refute that mentioned above, only that will be considered) : https://beaconhouse.academia.edu...