The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

[Prismatic567]

Do I have to specify every Framework and System I had used?

Yes.

Such an affirmative reflect very intellectual immaturity.
In general, the Framework and Systems used are very obvious, e.g. common sense, scientific, legal, political, economics, moral, logic, etc..
One only need to bring a Framework and System if the issue is contentious and there is a real need to do so as I had done in my discussions.

Note the logical, rational, Scientific, philosophical are very obvious.

Obvious when?

In any discussion where I discuss any syllogism then it is within the logic Framework. Matters involved the Scientific Framework [if you are informed of Science] is so obvious especially in a forum like this. If you are no sure then ask.

It's just silly to have to ask all the time. And it shows a fundamental flaw in your concept.

If you are well informed, for the obvious there is no need to ask all the time.

Normally for any normal scientific theories, it is obvious that is from the scientific framework.
For any contentious issue, it is very common to understand the perspective [Framework] from which the other side is relying on. For example it is necessary to understand whether one is relying on the Philosophical Realist or Philosophical anti-Realist view.

The big issue is you do not even understand the criticalness of the necessity to look at the the Framework and System you are relying upon to assert your conclusions. This is why you are such a mess.

Note the basis of my OP is this;

1. God is an impossibility - [frameworks referred are reason-logical, empirical]
2. God is driven by psychological factors - [most probable i.e. evidence from Psychological framework]
3. I had used philosophy as an overriding controller.

Your OP is based on a set of assumptions/framework. Almost everyone has pointed out the flaws in those assumptions/framework yet you hold on to your conclusions. Why? Because the conclusions make sense within your assumptions/framework. If you look beyond the assumptions/framework it all falls apart. You have trapped yourself in this particular mental construct.

I don't give a damn with your claim 'almost everyone .. pointed flaw." What is critical is whether counters raised against my argument are soundly justified or not.

It is not MY framework.
As I had pointed out I relied on various recognized framework and system.
Tell me within each recognized framework, logic, philosophy, & psychology where did I go wrong?

You are in the mess.
I have not deny the fact, multiple realities dependent on a framework are fundamentally dependent on the thoughts and experiences of individuals, INTERSUBJECTIVELY.

I see one reality which is independent of my thoughts. I have thoughts about that reality and I can test the validity of those thoughts because the external reality serves as an unbiased reference.
All individuals have equal access to that external reality. If their thoughts about it are different from mine, then we can evaluate those thoughts by referring to the external reality. We can come to conclusions about the merits of our thoughts.

My thoughts are different from yours because you are relying on the Philosophical Realism' framework, i.e.

Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

While I am relying on the Philosophical Anti-Realism Framework [of which there are many sub-systems].

In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.

My Philosophical Anti-Realism views are mostly based on the Kantian Framework.

The point is whose philosophical Framework, yours or mine is more philosophically sound.

If their thoughts about it are different from mine, then we can evaluate those thoughts by referring to the external reality. We can come to conclusions about the merits of our thoughts.

That is what I have been doing.
I assert your basis, i.e. Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory which ultimately lead to an illusory world and your favored so-called 'solipsism'.

I agree with "evaluate those thoughts". But you are not evaluating rather you are jumping to conclusion and condemning my views without rational justifications.

[phyllo]

I don't give a damn with your claim 'almost everyone .. pointed flaw." What is critical is whether counters raised against my argument are soundly justified or not.

It is not MY framework.
As I had pointed out I relied on various recognized framework and system.
Tell me within each recognized framework, logic, philosophy, & psychology where did I go wrong?

I already told you and you ignored it.

Error in psychology : You misunderstand the psychology of theists. A monotheist confronted by a person with a rival god has no reason to augment the power of his god since all rival gods are false. The ONE TRUE GOD has no competitors.

Error in science : You make no reference to any feature of the universe. Therefore, your syllogism cannot reflect the state of the universe. The syllogism is purely a construct in your mind.

Error in logic : You don't qualify you conclusion as only applying to the God that you have defined. Your conclusion ("Therefore God is an impossibility.") is mistakenly too broad- it appears to apply to all gods of any sort.

Error in 'who knows what' category : Your strange definition of absolute and relative perfection. There have been so many posts about it, I'm not adding any more firewood.

I assert your basis, i.e. Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory which ultimately lead to an illusory world and your favored so-called 'solipsism'.

Wow. Did not see that coming.

Called a solipsist twice in one day.

I believe that there is an external reality which is separate from what I think and it's in fact separate from my existence or anyone's existence. And it turns out ... that's solipsism.

[Prismatic567]

I don't give a damn with your claim 'almost everyone .. pointed flaw." What is critical is whether counters raised against my argument are soundly justified or not.

It is not MY framework.
As I had pointed out I relied on various recognized framework and system.
Tell me within each recognized framework, logic, philosophy, & psychology where did I go wrong?

I already told you and you ignored it.

I will acknowledge whatever you present if your arguments are sound.

Error in psychology : You misunderstand the psychology of theists. A monotheist confronted by a person with a rival god has no reason to augment the power of his god since all rival gods are false. The ONE TRUE GOD has no competitors.

Note the main point is the existential psychology and the 'zombie parasite' that compel theists to believe in a God.
You are very shallow here in the case of monotheists and their psychology. Christians and other theists used to believe [perhaps there are still some] who had believed God was like a giant bearded human being of superior power up there somewhere. Note the picture below;



The idea God exists is groundless except for psychological grounds and thus a theists or monotheists will always faced skepticisms from critical thinkers.
This is why the idea of God has been defined and re-defined towards the ultimate ontological god, i.e. an absolutely perfect God so to ensure, at least by reason, there is no greater God than one's God. I have given detail arguments on this many times.

Error in science : You make no reference to any feature of the universe. Therefore, your syllogism cannot reflect the state of the universe. The syllogism is purely a construct in your mind.

The ontological God is my syllogism is claimed by theists to have created the Universe [thus the Universe is referenced in my syllogism].
My syllogism is obviously constructed in my mind, if not where else, what is critical is I have presented my syllogism and open for all to critique.
I'll welcome any sound counters to my argument.

Error in logic : You don't qualify you conclusion as only applying to the God that you have defined. Your conclusion ("Therefore God is an impossibility.") is mistakenly too broad- it appears to apply to all gods of any sort.

Note my P2 implied God must be absolutely perfect. It is this same God that is an impossibility in my conclusion. You failed in logic on this one.

Error in 'who knows what' category : Your strange definition of absolute and relative perfection. There have been so many posts about it, I'm not adding any more firewood.

Note I have given many examples of how such 'absolute' and 'relative' perfection are used by others in the same sense.

I assert your basis, i.e. Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory which ultimately lead to an illusory world and your favored so-called 'solipsism'.

Wow. Did not see that coming.
Called a solipsist twice in one day.

1. I believe that there is an external reality which is separate from what I think and
2. it's in fact separate from my existence or anyone's existence.
3. And it turns out ... that's solipsism.

That is the point, you are ignorant when you accused others of being solipsistic, actually your views [of independent reality] are solipsistic as you have proven to yourself in the above.
[btw, I am not agreeable with the term 'solipsistic' in the typical sense, but in this case I am using solipsism in your sense against your own views.

Solipsism; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist.

[phyllo]

Note the main point is the existential psychology and the 'zombie parasite' that compel theists to believe in a God.
You are very shallow here in the case of monotheists and their psychology. Christians and other theists used to believe [perhaps there are still some] who had believed God was like a giant bearded human being of superior power up there somewhere. Note the picture below;

Image

The idea God exists is groundless except for psychological grounds and thus a theists or monotheists will always faced skepticisms from critical thinkers.
This is why the idea of God has been defined and re-defined towards the ultimate ontological god, i.e. an absolutely perfect God so to ensure, at least by reason, there is no greater God than one's God. I have given detail arguments on this many times.

This is you restating your position. It's not a reply to my point or an argument against my point.

And you need not repeat the same statements which you have made dozens of times. I remember what you have said in the past.

The ontological God is my syllogism is claimed by theists to have created the Universe [thus the Universe is referenced in my syllogism].

You don't use the fact that "God created the universe" in your syllogism. It plays no role in your argument either way (for or against). You could have stated that theists say that Jesus walked on water and water has been scientifically studied ... therefore you referenced features of the universe. It would be just as irrelevant to your argument.

[Prismatic567]

Note the main point is the existential psychology and the 'zombie parasite' that compel theists to believe in a God.
You are very shallow here in the case of monotheists and their psychology. Christians and other theists used to believe [perhaps there are still some] who had believed God was like a giant bearded human being of superior power up there somewhere. Note the picture below;

Image

The idea God exists is groundless except for psychological grounds and thus a theists or monotheists will always faced skepticisms from critical thinkers.
This is why the idea of God has been defined and re-defined towards the ultimate ontological god, i.e. an absolutely perfect God so to ensure, at least by reason, there is no greater God than one's God. I have given detail arguments on this many times.

This is you restating your position. It's not a reply to my point or an argument against my point.

And you need not repeat the same statements which you have made dozens of times. I remember what you have said in the past.

If you remember, then just let it pass. Such repetition could be helpful to other readers.

The ontological God is my syllogism is claimed by theists to have created the Universe [thus the Universe is referenced in my syllogism].

You don't use the fact that "God created the universe" in your syllogism. It plays no role in your argument either way (for or against). You could have stated that theists say that Jesus walked on water and water has been scientifically studied ... therefore you referenced features of the universe. It would be just as irrelevant to your argument.

I am not sure of your point above.

Note my syllogism;

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

I tried to make it as short and as simple as possible [KISS] which is the favored approach.
However I have added detailed explanations to each premises in the OP and in later posts.

To meet your expectation I could expand the above syllogism to;

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility.
P2. God [as defined and who created the Universe] imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C.. Therefore God [as defined and who created the Universe] is an impossibility.

I think what is more critical is the definition of 'what is God' [I have done that] and that will cover God's creation of the Universe.

[Snark]

You're still irrational, still irrelevant, Prismatic. You first premise fails no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Repeating yourself the way you do is what Goebbels did and ultimately for the same reason -- to promote hate and fear.

The second post, written by James S Saint, hit the nail on the head.

[Prismatic567]

You're still irrational, still irrelevant, Prismatic. You first premise fails no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Repeating yourself the way you do is what Goebbels did and ultimately for the same reason -- to promote hate and fear.

The second post, written by James S Saint, hit the nail on the head.

The usual babbling.
I understand theism can be a very psychological thing and any critiques against theism especially the one like mine which strikes at the heart of it can be very disturbing.

Do you have any sound argument against the premises?

[phyllo]

I am not sure of your point above.

That means that you don't understand the role of evidence in arguments for the existence of God.

P2. God [as defined and who created the Universe] imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C.. Therefore God [as defined and who created the Universe] is an impossibility.

You simply inserted "who created the Universe" into the statements which indicates that you don't get the purpose of such a phrase. In fact, it's pointless as you use it.

Basically, you have no evidence either way so your syllogism does not reflect reality. It reflects your mental constructs.

[Snark]

Why bother with someone who clearly has psychological issues; someone who, by their own admission, rejects their own natural inclinations?

[phyllo]

Why bother with someone who clearly has psychological issues; someone who, by their own admission, rejects their own natural inclinations?

At some point it becomes an exploration of his psychology. Why does he hang on so tightly to some ideas? Is there anything that can make him shift his position in more than a trivial way?

[James S Saint]

I have been a little curious as to whether his problem stems more from culture or genetics. Perhaps both since they are hardly independent.

[Snark]

Maybe he was molested and blames God.

[James S Saint]

Maybe he was molested and blames God.

I would suspect an Islamic Priest.

[Prismatic567]

I am not sure of your point above.

That means that you don't understand the role of evidence in arguments for the existence of God.

P2. God [as defined and who created the Universe] imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C.. Therefore God [as defined and who created the Universe] is an impossibility.

You simply inserted "who created the Universe" into the statements which indicates that you don't get the purpose of such a phrase. In fact, it's pointless as you use it.

Basically, you have no evidence either way so your syllogism does not reflect reality. It reflects your mental constructs.

Actually I don't get the point you are making.
I think you must be viewing it from another perspective.
I don't see any problem with my original P2.

Basically, you have no evidence either way so your syllogism does not reflect reality. It reflects your mental constructs.

There appears to be some confusion somewhere on your part.
Note all syllogisms in principles are mental constructs, i.e. logic and reason.

If the conclusion is to reflect reality [which is not my case] then the conclusion have to be verified and justified to prove it is real. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity like all syllogism is a mental construct and his conclusion was proven to be real with actual evidences.

The conclusion of my syllogism is to prove God do not exists in reality.
The idea of God is illusory, moot, a non-starter and an impossibility.
So there is no reason for my syllogism to reflect 'reality'.

It is like we know a square-circle is an impossibility, so there is no question of relating such a thought with reality. God is an impossibility, so there is no question of God being associated with reality.

What is really real is that the idea of God arose out of psychological factors.
I have already provided evidences [research and elsewhere] where the idea of God arose from brain damage, mental illnesses, drugs, hallucinogens, chemical, brain stimulations, and others.

Note I have provided evidences for further deliberations but theists for thousands of years have not provided any sound evidence God exists as real!

[Prismatic567]

Why bother with someone who clearly has psychological issues; someone who, by their own admission, rejects their own natural inclinations?

At some point it becomes an exploration of his psychology. Why does he hang on so tightly to some ideas? Is there anything that can make him shift his position in more than a trivial way?

I have written many times my objective is very transparent.
I am not a Buddhist but I have adopted one of the Boddhisattva's vow to extend compassion and empathy and be a responsible citizen to humanity.

My objective is the critique of God starts with this theistic-related evils;



Besides the above there is a whole load of evils and violence committed by SOME theists who are evil prone.

The ultimate root cause of the above terrible evils and violence is due to a belief in an idea of God by SOME evil prone believers.

The ultimate root cause of a belief in God is merely psychological and God is illusory which is driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Since the ultimate root cause is psychological, it is possible for humanity to deal with this psychological problem and replace theism with fool proof methods to manage the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis. I understand such a proposal is very disturbing to the majority of moderate theists, but there is no other more efficient choice.

Once theism is replaced in the future, there will no more possible theistic related evils and violence.
No doubt there will still be secular evils which nevertheless must be continually addressed and resolved.

[phyllo]

I am not a Buddhist but I have adopted one of the Boddhisattva's vow to extend compassion and empathy and be a responsible citizen to humanity.

Compassion and empathy don't really show in your posts. But that's just my opinion.

[phyllo]

Actually I don't get the point you are making.
I think you must be viewing it from another perspective.
I don't see any problem with my original P2.

Your premises are about what theists say about God. The premises are not actually about God. The premises are not about features of the world/universe.

Therefore your conclusion is not about what exists but rather it's about what theists say exists.

And even that is debatable because I don't think theists are saying what you claim that they are saying. Lots of posters here agree with me and they have told you so.

There appears to be some confusion somewhere on your part.
Note all syllogisms in principles are mental constructs, i.e. logic and reason.

Obviously all words and statements are only thoughts which exist in the mind.

If the conclusion is to reflect reality [which is not my case] then the conclusion have to be verified and justified to prove it is real. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity like all syllogism is a mental construct and his conclusion was proven to be real with actual evidences.

If your premises are not verified and justified as being real, then your conclusion cannot be real.

This is how it works in a syllogism :

P1 Stuff which has been witnessed.
P2 Other stuff which has been witnessed.
C Conclusion which logically follows from P1 and P2.

The conclusion need not be witnessed, verified, demonstrated empirically but it reflects reality. It may be verified in the future but that's a separate process and it's beside the point.

[Prismatic567]

Actually I don't get the point you are making.
I think you must be viewing it from another perspective.
I don't see any problem with my original P2.

Your premises are about what theists say about God. The premises are not actually about God. The premises are not about features of the world/universe.

Therefore your conclusion is not about what exists but rather it's about what theists say exists.

And even that is debatable because I don't think theists are saying what you claim that they are saying. Lots of posters here agree with me and they have told you so.

There appears to be some confusion somewhere on your part.
Note all syllogisms in principles are mental constructs, i.e. logic and reason.

Obviously all words and statements are only thoughts which exist in the mind.

If the conclusion is to reflect reality [which is not my case] then the conclusion have to be verified and justified to prove it is real. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity like all syllogism is a mental construct and his conclusion was proven to be real with actual evidences.

If your premises are not verified and justified as being real, then your conclusion cannot be real.

This is how it works in a syllogism :

P1 Stuff which has been witnessed.
P2 Other stuff which has been witnessed.
C Conclusion which logically follows from P1 and P2.

The conclusion need not be witnessed, verified, demonstrated empirically but it reflects reality. It may be verified in the future but that's a separate process and it's beside the point.

Note, the default to objective knowledge is as follows;

1. Present a rational hypothesis from abduction, etc.
2. Gather evidence, verify and justify hypothesis is true.
3. If proven true, then hypothesis is accepted as a true objective knowledge {justified true beliefs].

Yes my premise 2 is about what theists claim, i.e. God is a possibility and real absolutely perfect Being. I have explained how despite claims of lesser Gods, all claims of God are ultimately directed towards an absolutely perfect Being.

My purpose is to show the theists claim cannot even qualify for stage 1 above, i.e. as a rational and probable hypothesis.
If the claim of God cannot even be a proper hypothesis, then there is no grounds to proceed to stage 2 to establish whether God is a possibility and is real.
Therefore the theists' claim 'God exists' is moot, a non-starter, thus an impossibility.

I have stated this impossibility of God is like claim a square-circle exists, i.e.

1. All contradictions are impossible [logically, empirically]
2. A square-circle is a contradiction
3. Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility

Note again, the above stages 1-3 to arrive at real objective knowledge.
The claim "God exists?" cannot even qualify to be a rational hypothesis.

I have presented the alternative theory of how the idea of God arose within the consciousness of humans in this OP, The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.
I have given SOME [more in mind] details and evidences to explain my claim the idea of God is psychological.
It is because the idea of God is grounded on the psychological that the belief in a God is generally accepted as based on faith [belief without proof nor refined reason].

[Zero_Sum]

[James S Saint]

Note, the default to objective knowledge is as follows;

1. Present a rational hypothesis from abduction, etc.
2. Gather evidence, verify and justify hypothesis is true.
3. If proven true, then hypothesis is accepted as a true objective knowledge {justified true beliefs].

"Objective knowledge" means "knowledge of the objective" and "of the objective" means "of the ONE, common Reality".

Yes my premise 2 is about what theists claim, i.e. God is a possibility and real absolutely perfect Being. I have explained how despite claims of lesser Gods, all claims of God are ultimately directed towards an absolutely perfect Being.

Your first premise was false (and actually undefined). And, as phyllo told you before (as have others before), even proving that God could not be absolutely perfect does not disprove God's existence, rather merely that God is not as absolutely perfect as they thought..

Your syllogism is logically invalid and would not disprove God even if it was valid.

My purpose is to show the theists claim cannot even qualify for stage 1 above, i.e. as a rational and probable hypothesis. If the claim of God cannot even be a proper hypothesis, then there is no grounds to proceed to stage 2 to establish whether God is a possibility and is real.

Strawman.

Theists have not claimed that if God is not absolutely perfect, then God does not exist.

Your hypothesis is that if God exists, God must be absolutely perfect (your strawman). Your reasoning is that since absolute perfection is impossible, God is impossible.

I have stated this impossibility of God is like claim a square-circle exists, i.e.

1. All contradictions are impossible [logically, empirically]
2. A square-circle is a contradiction
3. Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility

Note again, the above stages 1-3 to arrive at real objective knowledge.
The claim "God exists?" cannot even qualify to be a rational hypothesis.

Again, a Strawman.

"All contradictions are impossible" is not the same as "Absolute perfection is impossible". The latter is an undefined phrase as well as being simply not true.

Your analogy is incorrect. Your premises have to be accepted as true, and your's was not.

I have presented the alternative theory of how the idea of God arose within the consciousness of humans in this OP, The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Yes, merely a "theory". Hume never proved anything. But literally everything can be said to be "psychological" thus it is pointless to make the claim except to insult and demean.

[Prismatic567]

Note, the default to objective knowledge is as follows;

1. Present a rational hypothesis from abduction, etc.
2. Gather evidence, verify and justify hypothesis is true.
3. If proven true, then hypothesis is accepted as a true objective knowledge {justified true beliefs].

"Objective knowledge" means "knowledge of the objective" and "of the objective" means "of the ONE, common Reality".

You are inventing your own meaning of 'objective.'

The following is what is generally accepted as objectivity in philosophy;

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources.
Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.
A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

Yes my premise 2 is about what theists claim, i.e. God is a possibility and real absolutely perfect Being. I have explained how despite claims of lesser Gods, all claims of God are ultimately directed towards an absolutely perfect Being.

Your first premise was false (and actually undefined). And, as phyllo told you before (as have others before), even proving that God could not be absolutely perfect does not disprove God's existence, rather merely that God is not as absolutely perfect as they thought..

Your syllogism is logically invalid and would not disprove God even if it was valid.

My purpose is to show the theists claim cannot even qualify for stage 1 above, i.e. as a rational and probable hypothesis. If the claim of God cannot even be a proper hypothesis, then there is no grounds to proceed to stage 2 to establish whether God is a possibility and is real.

Strawman.

Theists have not claimed that if God is not absolutely perfect, then God does not exist.

Your hypothesis is that if God exists, God must be absolutely perfect (your strawman). Your reasoning is that since absolute perfection is impossible, God is impossible.

I have stated this impossibility of God is like claim a square-circle exists, i.e.

1. All contradictions are impossible [logically, empirically]
2. A square-circle is a contradiction
3. Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility

Note again, the above stages 1-3 to arrive at real objective knowledge.
The claim "God exists?" cannot even qualify to be a rational hypothesis.

Again, a Strawman.

"All contradictions are impossible" is not the same as "Absolute perfection is impossible". The latter is an undefined phrase as well as being simply not true.

Your analogy is incorrect. Your premises have to be accepted as true, and your's was not.

The above has no substance worth my time, and note this point;

Your first premise was false (and actually undefined). And, as phyllo told you before (as have others before), even proving that God could not be absolutely perfect does not disprove God's existence, rather merely that God is not as absolutely perfect as they thought..

Aminius and Phyllo had raised the above points but I have countered effectively their superficial arguments. Have you read the responses I had given and do you have any counters of substance to them?

I have presented the alternative theory of how the idea of God arose within the consciousness of humans in this OP, The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Yes, merely a "theory". Hume never proved anything. But literally everything can be said to be "psychological" thus it is pointless to make the claim except to insult and demean.

I had provided evidences of how the idea of God arose in the brain and mind of some people.
For some they are cured of the idea of God oozing out of the brain by medicines, avoidance of drugs, brain damage is repaired, etc.

The basis of theism is psychological.
In the future humanity will have the knowledge and technology to understand fully the neuro-psychological mechanics and processes that drive theism with its good and evil elements. Then one will be able to switch off or inhibit the psychological impulses [re theism] via other non-theistic fool proof methods to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis within.
At present non-theistic Buddhism and other spiritualities without any negative baggages are already doing that.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Kant was not aware during his time that the underlying cause that drove theists to cling to pseudo-rational ideas is ultimately psychological from an infection a "zombie parasite" which is actively gnawing within the psyche.

Gotta love strong metaphysical claims like this one above...anyway Kant:

3.9 Miracles, Providence and Eschatology
Although Kant maintains that theoretical reason must keep a “respectful distance” from all claims of miracles and revelation, he nevertheless recognizes that most historical faiths regard God as active in history. Of course, this is not something that can be proven true or false, nor is it even something suitable for opining, given his technical understanding of this mode of assent. Nevertheless, in many works of the 1790s, he acknowledges the possibility of miracles and revelation, and seems quite willing to have them as part of church doctrine, though suitably calibrated to his epistemic strictures.

He writes, for example, that it would be “arrogant peremptorily to deny that the way a church is organized may perhaps also be a special divine dispensation” (6:105) and acknowledges that revelation “at a given time and a given place might be wise and very advantageous to the human race” (6:155). As noted above, he even accepts the possibility that the founding of Christianity was accompanied by various miracles (6:84). Hence, once one gives Religion its due significance within the corpus, it should be recognized that Kant is not only not an atheist or agnostic, but he is not even a Deist. While theoretical reason is agnostic, and pure rational faith likewise is neutral with regards to any particular historical claim, Kant is clearly open to divine agency in the world.

Kant, further, considers Providence in Religion, and presents history as an advance towards the “Kingdom of God on earth” (6:132). While practically speaking, we should never expect or depend upon divine aid in this advance, for each person should act as if “everything depended on him” (6:101), Kant nevertheless represents the Highest Good and the Ethical Community eschatologically, as “a work whose execution cannot be hoped for from human beings but only from God himself” (6:100). So, while we must never relieve ourselves of our moral efforts, as we remain responsible for our own moral transformation, this does not exclude divine aid in other respects. Through miracles and revelation, the founding of the Christian church, and so forth, Kant is open to God's agency in this world, giving us the tools we need to facilitate our individual and corporate moral endeavors.

Of course, this remains still far removed from Kant affirming as true any particular claim of divine aid. He accepts Providence as a vital part of historical faith. He recognizes the value of an openness, an acceptance that God may be active in history. He even sees the idea of Providence as helpful to our understanding of the Highest Good as the telos of creation. Providence thus gives us a “representation in a historical narrative… a beautiful ideal of the moral world-epoch brought about by the introduction of the true universal religion” (6:135). However, he repudiates those who push farther, treating our belief in miracles and revelation as essential or necessary to our salvation. He likewise, particularly in the “End of All Things,” opposes Chiliasm, for that presumes a knowledge of when the end time will arrive. Beyond what is more strictly bound up with the practical function of the postulate of immortality, we have no theoretical grounds to positively affirm any model of the life to come, or a timetable for “the transition from time into eternity” (8:327).

[Prismatic567]

Kant was not aware during his time that the underlying cause that drove theists to cling to pseudo-rational ideas is ultimately psychological from an infection a "zombie parasite" which is actively gnawing within the psyche.

Gotta love strong metaphysical claims like this one above...anyway Kant:

3.9 Miracles, Providence and Eschatology
Although Kant maintains that theoretical reason must keep a “respectful distance” from all claims of miracles and revelation, he nevertheless recognizes that most historical faiths regard God as active in history. Of course, this is not something that can be proven true or false, nor is it even something suitable for opining, given his technical understanding of this mode of assent. Nevertheless, in many works of the 1790s, he acknowledges the possibility of miracles and revelation, and seems quite willing to have them as part of church doctrine, though suitably calibrated to his epistemic strictures.

He writes, for example, that it would be “arrogant peremptorily to deny that the way a church is organized may perhaps also be a special divine dispensation” (6:105) and acknowledges that revelation “at a given time and a given place might be wise and very advantageous to the human race” (6:155). As noted above, he even accepts the possibility that the founding of Christianity was accompanied by various miracles (6:84). Hence, once one gives Religion its due significance within the corpus, it should be recognized that Kant is not only not an atheist or agnostic, but he is not even a Deist. While theoretical reason is agnostic, and pure rational faith likewise is neutral with regards to any particular historical claim, Kant is clearly open to divine agency in the world.

Kant, further, considers Providence in Religion, and presents history as an advance towards the “Kingdom of God on earth” (6:132). While practically speaking, we should never expect or depend upon divine aid in this advance, for each person should act as if “everything depended on him” (6:101), Kant nevertheless represents the Highest Good and the Ethical Community eschatologically, as “a work whose execution cannot be hoped for from human beings but only from God himself” (6:100). So, while we must never relieve ourselves of our moral efforts, as we remain responsible for our own moral transformation, this does not exclude divine aid in other respects. Through miracles and revelation, the founding of the Christian church, and so forth, Kant is open to God's agency in this world, giving us the tools we need to facilitate our individual and corporate moral endeavors.

Of course, this remains still far removed from Kant affirming as true any particular claim of divine aid. He accepts Providence as a vital part of historical faith. He recognizes the value of an openness, an acceptance that God may be active in history. He even sees the idea of Providence as helpful to our understanding of the Highest Good as the telos of creation. Providence thus gives us a “representation in a historical narrative… a beautiful ideal of the moral world-epoch brought about by the introduction of the true universal religion” (6:135). However, he repudiates those who push farther, treating our belief in miracles and revelation as essential or necessary to our salvation. He likewise, particularly in the “End of All Things,” opposes Chiliasm, for that presumes a knowledge of when the end time will arrive. Beyond what is more strictly bound up with the practical function of the postulate of immortality, we have no theoretical grounds to positively affirm any model of the life to come, or a timetable for “the transition from time into eternity” (8:327).

What is the reference or link to the above?

Most of the above is a misrepresentation of Kant's view.
The only provision for God in Kant's philosophy is that or a reasoned-God within Morality as the pivot of the highest good. Kant never accept God as a real thing within empirical-rational reality.

I do not agree with Kant's use of the term 'God' within his Philosophy of Morality.
The term 'God' can lead to many of its misinterpretations.
There is another term to God which Kant used, i.e. the Ens Realisimum.

[Snark]

There is another term to God which Kant used, i.e. the Ens Realisimum.

What's your beef? Ens Realisimum = "the most real being" = God

[Ierrellus]

The ultimate ground of God is the self-aware experiences of biological evolution, which indicate teleology. One again--God is a verb, not a noun. God is a force, not a thingy.
"The force that though the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age.. ."Dylan Thomas