Well, let’s just say that we understand Kant differently: Take this argument for example: ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/20 … th-in-god/
No, we can’t know that in fact God does exist. But He has to. Why? Because without one or another transcending frame of mind there is no ontological/teleological foundation upon which mere mortals can rationalize telling the murderer where the woman is hiding.
And, really, how far is this sort of thinking from Platonic Forms?
Why do you need the faithful to convince you their God exists? Use your head and own ability to reason & rationalize the reality and truth.
From my own vantage point, all you are noting here is this: that were I to use my head and my own ability to reason, I would think like you do about these things. I would share your own reality and truth.
Trust me: I get that part.
And then you go here:
Say, if some claim a square-circle exists, would you wait for them to produce empirical evidence. If there is none then you be agnostic and be stuck in a rut?
As though this is really relevant to the conflicts that exist regarding that which constitutes a superior or inferior God. But it sure does take us out of the is/ought world. After all, how many folks do you know who actually claim that a square circle does in fact exist? Or that a circle ought to be square?
The irony here [as I construe it] is this: that, given the gap between what any particular individual claims to know about God and all that would need to be known about Existence itself, has anyone actually been able to close it?
There you go again, i.e. wallowing in the impossible, i.e. “ALL to be known”. This is pure intellectual contraption literally.
As I see it, it can only be an intellectual contraption here and now because no one has ever been able to encompass the very nature of Existence itself. At least not to my own satisfaction. Why something and not nothing? Why this something and not another something? But common sense tells me that until I do grasp this, I cannot possibly comprehend a full and complete understanding of something as seemingly insignificant as the “human condition”. In other words, in the context of All There Is. Let alone a full and complete understanding of the relationship between mere mortals on this tiny little rock floating in the vastness of space and the existence of a God, the God.
Sure, maybe. But my argument here is that…
1] no one has yet to convince me of this
2] had someone in fact accomplished this beyond all doubt [one way or the other], it is all everyone would be talking about
Why do you need someone to convince you.
Because sans God I can only conclude [reasonably I believe] that we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless universe that ends for “I” in oblivion.
And, in turn, on this side of the grave, I am entangled in my dilemma because sans God there does not appear to be any font/foundation I can turn to in order to obviate conflicting goods embedded in dasein out in any particular world governed by the dictates of political economy.
And to that you go straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:
No one will be able to accomplished that claim [prove or disprove God empirically] beyond all doubts because God is an impossibility in the first place. It is moot and a non-starter.
The idea of God arose out of reason, so we use reason and critical thinking to review it and the conclusion is such a hypothesis is an impossibility within the default empirical-rational reality.
In other words, to whatever extent this is relevant to the actual existential parameters of human interaction in a No God world, you believe it.
You claim that God is an “impossibility in the first place” becasue you simply argue that He is. In a world of words. You demonstrate nothing. And, as with folks like James Saint [who seems to have disappeared of late], that ever and always revolves around the “definitional logic” of the “analysis” embedded in the intellectual contraption/invention itself.
Or, rather, so it certainly seems to me.