I doubt you will dispute with me that Kant’s philosophy was enormously influential on the subsequent history of thought though you may disagree that it can be widely interpreted even by the academic experts since you seem to be quite certain that your interpretation is the only correct one.
Turns out the phrase “empirically real” or “real empirically” is problematic and ambiguous though. Kant has conceded that the really real i.e. “the thing itself” is unknowable. Thus, sensory data is mere phenomena. Yet, per Kant, the mind imposes it’s own order on the data. The structure we know as the “world” is not the world as it is in itself but rather the structure of our mind as the “world”.
So, in what sense can we call this “reality”? From Kant through Darwin, Freud, neuro-scientists, etc., it became evident that human thought and perception is determined, structured, and often distorted by a multiple innate, non-absolute mental “categories” including but not limited to habit, history, culture, social class, biology, language, imagination, emotion, and the unconscious. Your “empirical reality” begs the question,how the human mind can be relied upon to be an accurate judge of “reality”?
So what can we say about reality- as- it- is- in- itself? The wisest e.g. Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counsel against talking about it. The religions anthropomorphize and mythologize it. Atheists claim they don’t believe in it but they can’t stop talking about it and may be no less obsessed with an image of it than theists. So, here we are.
In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard’s attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity”?
Perfection is not judged objectively, it is a subjective human value judgement. A “perfect-circle” is something that would meet certain geometrical conditions; it would be an inter-subjective human observation to call that circle “perfect” - it is necessarily a value judgement. In my view, things are not perfect unless people attribute that value to them, and absolute perfection is something that human beings attribute to things, not an actual quantity that can be said to exist or not exist, the observation is based wholly upon what people perceive. So I think that your claim “absolute perfection is impossible” is your subjective viewpoint. You are arguing against what theists may think or claim about the God they believe in, with what you believe. All that you’ve demonstrated is your opinion.
Yes, Kant’s philosophy was highly influential, thus labelled as one of the greatest Western philosophers of all times. I believe he is ‘not one of’ but THE Greatest.
The reading of Kant is divided into two major camps, i.e.
-the non-analytic, e.g. Alison and others
-the analytic camp non-theistic, e.g. Guyer and others
----2a - the theological theist camp - Stephen Palmquist, and others.
I agree totally with the views of camp 1 i.e. Alison and others.
Therefore I am not claiming my interpretation is the only correct one.
I have relied on this view to add on my argument, God is an impossibility to exists as real.
Those in camp 2 believe the thing-in-itself is a thing that exists.
The theists in camp 2a believe the thing-in-itself exists as a real thing, i.e. God.
Kant did not claim the “thing-in-itself” is unknowable.
The thing-in-itself is outside the realm of knowledge, so how can it be known or unknowable.
The question of ‘knowable’ or ‘unknowable’ is moot, i.e. a non-started as far as the ‘thing-in-itself’ is concerned.
I have quoted this many times;
The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it [noumenon] is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
The division of Objects into Phenomena and Noumena, and the World into a World of the Senses and a World of the Understanding, is therefore quite inadmissible in the Positive sense, 2 although the distinction of Concepts as Sensible and Intellectual is certainly legitimate.
For no Object can be determined for the latter [intellectual] Concepts, and consequently they [noumena] cannot be asserted to be Objectively Valid.
A255 B311 - Smith
Kant stated, the concept of the nuomenon is ONLY a Limiting Concept and cannot be taken in the positive sense in terms of knowledge.
Kant repeated the above [re noumenon] many times. Show me where did Kant change his mind on the above thereafter in the CPR?
The noumenon is also the same as the thing-in-itself but in another perspective.
I have already quoted Kant in stating the thing-in-itself can only be used regulatively [you need to understand this term] and NEVER constructively, i.e. positively and objectively.
The thing-in-itself albeit illusory is only good for use within morality but never epistemology, i.e. knowledge to be known or is somewhere unknowable.
Kant never state there is a reality out there to be known.
What Kant presented is a reality emerges interdependently with the subject [humans] i.e. objects are Given within the process of emergence, not as pre-existing externally to be perceived.
Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counselled against wishing for its existence as real as such an expectation is an impossibility and one will end up with a reified illusion.
Point is, whether the thing-in-itself exists are real or not, knowable or unknowable is moot, i.e. a non-starter.
What Kant proposed ‘moral-based-religion’ is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio circumstances during his time and when he was under threat by the King.
Circles are empirically possible because they can be observed in nature.
Note Objective = Intersubjective consensus.
A perfect circle is inferred by empirical observation of circles in nature and this supported by geometrical measurements derived from reason as mere thoughts only.
Who in the world will dispute what is the measurement for a perfect circle - there is no way for an alternative, thus there is intersubjective consensus, i.e. from subjective to intersubjective to objective.
The fact is, the perfect circle is impossible to be real empirically.
But at least, a perfect circle [impossible] is grounded on empirical observation of circles.
While a perfect circle [impossible to be real] is inferred and computed from observations of empirical circles in nature or created by humans, the idea of an absolute perfect God is not grounded on anything real at all [only by psychological drives].
While a perfect circle is related to real empirical circles, an absolute perfect God is not related to anything that is real at all.
Therefore the idea of God has no possibility of relating to anything real.
Nope, it is not my claim at all.
I have stated many times, the term “absolute perfection” attributable to God is done by more advanced theologians like St. Anselm, Descartes with their ontological God.
What you are trying to say is correct, i.e. these theists are highly subjective in attributing ‘absolute perfection’ to their idea of God.
I have argued this subjective motivation to conjure the idea of God as “absolutely-perfect” is due to terrible subliminal existential psychological impulses.
What I have demonstrated is the idea of God as postulated by theists is moot, i.e. impossible to be real.
It is not an opinion.
Rather I have backed up my view with rational arguments and justifications.
You don’t seem to understand, but I don’t see how I could be any clearer? Perfection is a value judgement. Perfect, applied to circles, is a term/emphasis we use to describe how accurately such a circle would comply to a specific geometrical condition. Perfection is a term used to describe how people relate to something, it is something that human beings attribute to something and it is subjective or inter-subjective, it is certainly not objective. Whatever theists claim about God is based upon their value judgements. God could be any number of things and have any number of attributes, but it is human-beings who’ve decided that God is perfect. Perfection is not an actual entity; it exists only in the minds of people - which doesn’t mean that a being that people perceive as perfect is impossible to exist - your claim is absolute and very problematic.
Que? The premise of your argument is that absolute perfection is impossible. You have been arguing this for quite some time. Now you’re saying that it isn’t your claim? Who else has claimed that absolute perfection is impossible here?
To yourself maybe, but it is clearly your opinion.
If not, then what is objective.
Scientific knowledge is objective, do you agree?
But scientific knowledge which is objective is grounded on intersubjective consensus among the specific scientists peers. You dispute this?
Anything with values there is a value judgement.
The question is whether the value judgement is highly subjective, reasonable justified or highly justified.
A perfect-circle within geometry is a highly justified value judgment which is objective [universal] established via intersubjective consensus.
How do you define objective then?
objective:
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
The established measurement of an objective ‘perfect circle’ will not be influenced by personal feeling or opinions.
Therefore wherever the measure of a “perfect circle” is referred to by anyone, it is not their personal judgment based on their personal feeling or opinion but refer to a universal value measurement as a standard in geometry.
You just cannot insist in your personal subjective value judgement as what are to be the measurements for an objective perfect circle.
I have already stated “absolute perfection” is not my claim as an attribute to God.
I said, my claim is, the claim of God with an attribute of absolute perfection by theists, is impossible if such is God is claimed to be real.
Generally an opinion is a view blurted by someone without an justified basis, i.e. any one can expressed any opinion any time.
The above is not something I pick from nowhere but my personal belief with high conviction based on rational arguments and justification.
You don’t seem to understand. Science deals with quantities. Inter-subjectivity in science is related to empirical observation, not value judgements.
Without the term “perfection” we have a circle that would comply to a certain geometrical condition – that is objective. The term “perfect” wouldn’t add anything to the circle or change it in any way because it is not an actual quantity. Perfect is the emphasis, it is subjective or inter-subjective, it isn’t necessary.
I’m not, but perfection doesn’t have to be universally accepted – that is the nature of perfection.
On the premise that “absolute perfection is impossible”. That is your absolute claim.
I understand what you’re attempting to do, but I don’t think that you’re correct. In my view, perfection simply cannot be used as a premise to prove or disprove the existence of something. If perfection was a quantity, then I could see where you’re coming from. But because perfection is a quality that exists only inter-subjectively, it cannot be used to as a framework to imply the non-existence of something that is claimed to be empirical.
You disputed my point ‘objective = intersubjectivity.’
I asked but you did not reply nor counter, scientific knowledge is objective which = intersubjectivity.
In certain sciences, judgments are quantified [the use of ratings on emotional feelings] then it is objective based on intersubjectivity.
That a serial murderer was convicted in a certain court upon circumstantial evidences was based on the intersubjectivity consensus of the jury.
That Zozibini Tunzi won Miss Universe 2019 is an objective fact, but that was based on the intersubjective judgments of all the judges.
The degree of objectivity [confidence level] will depend on the basis relied upon.
Without ‘perfection’ attributed to a circle as a standard, we will have various subjective views of what is a circle.
With ‘perfection’ or a perfect circle as a standard, then whatever is claimed as a circle in practice can be determined as to how close it is to the standard-circle.
Do you understand what is universal Geometry?
What you are saying is like, within basic Arithmetic, “1 + 1 = 2” need not be universally accepted, so 1 + 1 = 5 and others are correct. That is crazy.
It is not my absolutely absolute claim.
It is my conditional claim grounded on the arguments and justifications I provided.
You missed the point.
The point is the more advanced theologians claim their God exists as real and is absolutely perfect. This is a contradiction.
I am arguing their claim is false i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real with absolute perfection.
In addition I am not into proving or disproving the existence of something.
What I have demonstrated is the hypothesis [postulation] “God to exists as real with absolute perfection” is moot, i.e. a non-starter because it is contradiction.
This is like claiming ‘square-circle’ exists as real which is obviously a moot point, i.e. a non-starter.
Btw, I have offered the justified alternative argument why theists conjure and cling to an illusory God for psychological security purposes.
This is a cheap shot. I haven’t questioned universal geometry (where?), I said that perfection doesn’t have to be universally accepted - I wasn’t specifically referring to geometry when I said that, it was a general statement. I did also state “I’m not” which you seem to have missed.
The claim “absolute perfection is impossible” is an absolute one. I don’t understand why you are saying that it isn’t? But human-beings don’t know such absolutes, so there is no choice but to argue on conditional premises - which defeats the endeavour. I think that the fact is, you can never know if what you term as “absolute perfection” is possible or impossible and there are reasons for that.
This seems like a red herring to me. But in giving you the benefit of the doubt all I’ll say is, same difference.
With regards to the other points you made; I’ll stick with what I originally stated.
There are several errors in his attack. He simply presumes that the rules of math are analogous or even equal to perfection. With no demonstration of this. Second he moves from absolute to universal. And as a side note, one could have a math that has 1+1=5.
[/quote]
Notice the part I bolded in his quote above yours. Prismatic says that the more ‘advanced’ theologians claim their goal is absolutely perfect. An atheist is deciding whose version of God and what words about God are the correct ones, any other theist’s ideas be damned. He is THE expert, determining whose religious ideas are the best, then using these as the basis for his proof that any God does not exist.
This has been pointed out to him before. But here I noticed the new appeal to the authority of SOME of his opponents, ironically, to form one of the premises of his ‘proof’.
It has been pointed out here also to him the naivte about the philosophy of language, religious language in general that he is using here. Why we MUST follow the ideas of certain theologians and assume that if there is a God it must be their version of it, he does not argue.
And he has performed these problematic arguments for years, as I think you know, simply going back to old defenses when new interlocuters come along.
I think that all of the points you raise are valid. And this one “He simply presumes that the rules of math are analogous or even equal to perfection.” is one of the key ones. As you say, there is no demonstration for this, his interlocutors are just supposed to accept this as a given.
I’m not that educated, but I have a few qualifications which covered the subjects we’re discussing. As you’ve said previously, I think that Prismatic an autodidact, which is fine. But if this is the case, there hasn’t been anyone qualified to guide his education and show him where he is making mistakes or the areas he could improve in – which I feel he would be better for. At this stage however, I highly doubt that he would accept criticism or see it as constructive as he appears to be so locked within his views. Which is a shame, because as we’ve both stated he is very bright. As we have things, he is quite the immovable object. No matter how salient your points are, he will just try to find ways to out maneuver them. As I see things, because he just wants to win.
Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God. The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”. This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post. Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.
Yes, Kant demonstrated all proofs of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument which is attributed with ‘absolute perfection.’
This is why I raised my P2 in the OP, i.e.
P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect
If your God cannot be found within the totality of beings, then you are alluding that your God is an inferior God or even a false God.
God is supposed to be omnipresent [absolute], so God has to be present everywhere. So an independent God is a weak God.
When your God is a thing that is separated from its creation, than, it is possible for the existence of a God which is greater than your God and thus leading to infinite regression.
For example, the Muslims will claim their God is greater than your God, how are you going to counter them or anyone who insist your God is inferior to theirs?
If God cannot be said to exist, then it is a non-existence, i.e. God does not exist.
That would be weird.
As I had proposed, no matter how much theists eel [twist and turn] their way to insist God exists [as whatever], there is no real God.
There are high psychological stakes involved and the reason why theists conjure [reify] an illusory God naturally is merely to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
As usual, instead of counter with rational justified arguments you end up with ad hominens.
As in Science and Philosophy, it would be very intellectual immature to seek to win [like in a court].
The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one’s existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.
There have been many counter-arguments and salient points made in this thread. Why would the case be that none of them are justified, but your arguments are justified?
Bonhoffer…was most likely a theist, though there is some controversy and his beliefs, of course, have nothing to do with demonstrating what Kant believed…
and yes, Kierkegaard was a theist, though he was very critical of the church. Those should no be conflated.
I’m not arguing for the existence of God. I’m identifying the God symbol with being itself. Every finite being participates in being itself by the mere fact of its existence, you included. So any God that is a being depends on being itself for existence and is therefore inferior in the sense of dependence or contingency.
Being itself is in no way separate from creation or the universe of all beings. All beings participate in it. The distinction here is that between the ontic and the ontological. youtube.com/watch?v=FE9lcWRgTOE
God symbolizes the mystery of being. Infinite regression symbolizes the abysmal nature of ultimate reality.
Every particular God of whatever religion including Islam symbolizes ultimate reality. As the Tao Te Ching recognized little can be said literally about the ultimate. “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” The major religions participate in the mystery of ultimate being by means of metaphorical narratives which they hold sacred.
The psychologist in me loves to hear a subject disclose their fantasies. What sadistic pleasure you must have had at your mental image of the theist eel twisting and turning. Ha ha! I love it! =D>
I only mentioned Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer because Prismatic567 used a text in which Kant strongly criticized ritual, superstition and the church hierarchy as an argument for Kant being an atheist whereas Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer who criticized ritual, superstition and church hierarchy radically are considered theists.
