Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

[Atla]

I have not [yet] come across anyone comparing FSRCs like I do on an explicitly basis.
However, I am very certain the exercise is done intuitively and implicitly.

If one were to do a survey, the general consensus is science is more reliable, credible and trustworthy than other sources of knowledge:

1. Scientists are among the most trusted groups in society, though many value practical experience over expertise
Pew

In the event of a medical issue, the general consensus at present is;
there is greater trust in the medical-science FSK in contrast to the theological-cure FSK based on the words of God.
The question how did those who favor the medical-science FSK make a comparison in arriving at a judgment that the the medical-science FSK is more reliable than the theological FSK.

Would you trust a shaman-FSK to operate on you or the proper medical-science FSK.

On the origin of the Universe, do you trust the science-physics-cosmological FSK or the theological FSK?

Surely those who decide on which FSK they prefer must have arrive at their judgment based on intuition of some sort but how objective it is?

What I am trying to do is to make the basis of the judgment more explicit.
To be objective we need some sort of rational methodology to compare the credibility and reliability of each FSK to the best of our ability.
With a methodology we can review and improve the basis of how we arrive at the conclusion and judgment rather than merely picking it out of the air based on faith.

My FSK says to ignore what your FSK says.

My FSK agrees with your FSK. VA says something like, if more than one person holds an FSK, then its contents are fact.

[Flannel Jesus]

I have not [yet] come across anyone comparing FSRCs like I do on an explicitly basis.
However, I am very certain the exercise is done intuitively and implicitly.

If one were to do a survey, the general consensus is science is more reliable, credible and trustworthy than other sources of knowledge:

1. Scientists are among the most trusted groups in society, though many value practical experience over expertise
Pew

In the event of a medical issue, the general consensus at present is;
there is greater trust in the medical-science FSK in contrast to the theological-cure FSK based on the words of God.
The question how did those who favor the medical-science FSK make a comparison in arriving at a judgment that the the medical-science FSK is more reliable than the theological FSK.

Would you trust a shaman-FSK to operate on you or the proper medical-science FSK.

On the origin of the Universe, do you trust the science-physics-cosmological FSK or the theological FSK?

Surely those who decide on which FSK they prefer must have arrive at their judgment based on intuition of some sort but how objective it is?

What I am trying to do is to make the basis of the judgment more explicit.
To be objective we need some sort of rational methodology to compare the credibility and reliability of each FSK to the best of our ability.
With a methodology we can review and improve the basis of how we arrive at the conclusion and judgment rather than merely picking it out of the air based on faith.

My FSK says to ignore what your FSK says.

My FSK agrees with your FSK. VA says something like, if more than one person holds an FSK, then its contents are fact.

Our fsks are increasing in objectivity according to his fsk

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have demonstrated, the scientific FSRC has the highest degree of credibility and objectivity, thus is taken as the golden standard and indexed say at 100/100 where all FSRC are contrasted.

You claimed it, yes.
And within what FSRC was this assertion conditioned on?
What is the name of that FSRC?
Note: not the science FSRC, but the FSRC that compared the various FSRCs, including the science FSRC. What is the name of that FSRC that compared?
Not the argument you put forward, but the FSRC it is conditioned on.

Note your own criteria:

Rather a FSRC is conditioned upon a collective of subjects upon an explicit or implicit constitution, rules, conditions, processes, and other necessary elements.

Thus, 'YOUR' personal subjective belief do not qualify as a FSRC and it is 100% subjective and not objective of varying degrees within a continuum from 1 to 99.9% objectivity.

Can you link us to where other people come up with percentages of objectivity and rate science as you do, etc.

What is this meta-FSRC and what is its epistemology?

With the physics FSRC we have a clear name and professionals and organizations we can look to?

What is the simple name of the FSRC you used and who are the professionals?

A FSRC exists wherever there is a collective-of-subjects [not one or a loose group of people] grounding upon an implicit or explicit constitution in relation to the realization and cognition of knowledge.
A FSRC can be named in reference to the subject matter it is involved and there is no need for any professional.
Ultimately the credibility and objectivity of any FSRC is assessed based on a methodology that is acceptable by all rationalpeople, i.e. those who are capable of minimal critical thinking.

It is reasonable to ask what is the FSRC of the methodology assessment of FSRC which indicate there is a likely-hood of an infinite regression.
In such a particular case, we need to consider how to recognize the limit of logical circularity and view the issue more widely in dialectical terms of continuous improvements.
In this way, the methodology of assessment must be subjected to continuous review to assess strengths and weaknesses, testing to promote continuous improvements.

[Iwannaplato]

My FSK says to ignore what your FSK says.

And I have the same FSK Flannel Jesus does. So, now it is intersubjective and to some degree objective.

If VA wants to say more believe believe his meta-FSK, then we can sick theists on him, because they outnumber the people who believe in his FSK as described here.

If he then wants to say their FSK isn't objective, he has to say why his FSK that determines objectivity, his way, is more objective than their FSK. So, he needs an FSK to compare FSKs.

[Iwannaplato]

A FSRC exists wherever there is a collective-of-subjects [not one or a loose group of people] grounding upon an implicit or explicit constitution in relation to the realization and cognition of knowledge.
A FSRC can be named in reference to the subject matter it is involved and there is no need for any professional.

1) What FSK is that assertion of yours conditioned on?

Ultimately the credibility and objectivity of any FSRC is assessed based on a methodology that is acceptable by all rationalpeople, i.e. those who are capable of minimal critical thinking.

What FSK is that conclusion conditioned on? What FSK determines which people are rational?

Why are you using the passive voice: for example, is assessed. Who is doing this assessing and using what FSK?

It is reasonable to ask what is the FSRC of the methodology assessment of FSRC which indicate there is a likely-hood of an infinite regression.
In such a particular case, we need to consider how to recognize the limit of logical circularity and view the issue more widely in dialectical terms of continuous improvements.

I don't understand that sentence and further what FSK is it conditioned on and what is the degree of objectivty of that FSK.

And aren't you using the homonculous argument against Atla elsewhere? Why do just get to wave your hand to dismiss a regresssion - which, by the way was not my only argument here or even the main one - but you regression arguments against others?

In this way, the methodology of assessment must be subjected to continuous review to assess strengths and weaknesses, testing to promote continuous improvements.

'Must be'. What FSK is this obligation conditioned on?

Why do the things you assert need no FSCR and no professional support or even, often, intersubjectivity, but other people's claims need this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

A FSRC exists wherever there is a collective-of-subjects [not one or a loose group of people] grounding upon an implicit or explicit constitution in relation to the realization and cognition of knowledge.
A FSRC can be named in reference to the subject matter it is involved and there is no need for any professional.

1) What FSK is that assertion of yours conditioned on?

Ultimately the credibility and objectivity of any FSRC is assessed based on a methodology that is acceptable by all rationalpeople, i.e. those who are capable of minimal critical thinking.

What FSK is that conclusion conditioned on? What FSK determines which people are rational?

Why are you using the passive voice: for example, is assessed. Who is doing this assessing and using what FSK?

It is reasonable to ask what is the FSRC of the methodology assessment of FSRC which indicate there is a likely-hood of an infinite regression.
In such a particular case, we need to consider how to recognize the limit of logical circularity and view the issue more widely in dialectical terms of continuous improvements.

I don't understand that sentence and further what FSK is it conditioned on and what is the degree of objectivty of that FSK.

And aren't you using the homonculous argument against Atla elsewhere? Why do just get to wave your hand to dismiss a regresssion - which, by the way was not my only argument here or even the main one - but you regression arguments against others?

In this way, the methodology of assessment must be subjected to continuous review to assess strengths and weaknesses, testing to promote continuous improvements.

'Must be'. What FSK is this obligation conditioned on?

Why do the things you assert need no FSCR and no professional support or even, often, intersubjectivity, but other people's claims need this?

As stated above;

It is reasonable to ask what is the FSRC of the methodology assessment of FSRC which indicate there is a likely-hood of an infinite regression.
In such a particular case, we need to consider how to recognize the limit of logical circularity and view the issue more widely in dialectical terms of continuous improvements.
In this way, the methodology of assessment must be subjected to continuous review to assess strengths and weaknesses, testing to promote continuous improvements.

Elsewhere, I have stated, to ensure consensus of the methodology of assessment of each FSRC we rely on the consensus of a set of criteria and agree upon the weightages to be given to each criteria.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Because the methodology is one level above all other individual FSRC, it would be considered to be a Meta-FRSC to be an exception from all individual FSRC.

What is rational must be grounded on critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation.[1]
The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind,[2] thus a critical thinker is a person who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been trained and educated in its disciplines.[3]
Philosopher Richard W. Paul said that the mind of a critical thinker engages the person's intellectual abilities and personality traits.[4]
Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use in effective communication and problem solving, and a commitment to overcome egocentrism and sociocentrism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

You cannot deny in various time of your life you have give credence to one source of knowledge [science] [other reliable sources of knowledge] over other sources of knowledge [astrology, shamanism, myths, folk beliefs, etc.].
On what basis do you give preference on one source of knowledge over the other?

You just make your decision out of the blue, hearsays, because your preferred people agree with it, intuition, etc.
This is a cheap way to make decision and intellectually irresponsible.

On the other hand, I am proposing we establish some sort of methods of assessments of the credibility and objectivity of each source of knowledge to the best of our ability based on rational and critical thinking basis.

[Iwannaplato]

As stated above;

It is reasonable to ask what is the FSRC of the methodology assessment of FSRC which indicate there is a likely-hood of an infinite regression.
In such a particular case, we need to consider how to recognize the limit of logical circularity and view the issue more widely in dialectical terms of continuous improvements.

This seems like a fancy way of saying you don't need an FSRC for this, suddenly.

In this way, the methodology of assessment must be subjected to continuous review to assess strengths and weaknesses, testing to promote continuous improvements.

But you need a FSRC to do that. You can't suddenly have a field of knowledge without an FSRC if you've been saying that all knowledge is conditioned on an FSRC.

Elsewhere, I have stated, to ensure consensus of the methodology of assessment of each FSRC we rely on the consensus of a set of criteria and agree upon the weightages to be given to each criteria.

OK, then either that's the FSRC or it isn't. If it isn't then it seems you don't have one. If it is the FSRC for FSKs, 1) I'm not sure why you didn't say it but 2) There is no intersubjective consensus on that.

Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Because the methodology is one level above all other individual FSRC, it would be considered to be a Meta-FRSC to be an exception from all individual FSRC.

That's a bare assertion.

What is rational must be grounded on critical thinking.

According to what FRSC? And where is the consensus within whatever that FSRC about what that is and that that is.

Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation.[1]
The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind,[2] thus a critical thinker is a person who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been trained and educated in its disciplines.[3]
Philosopher Richard W. Paul said that the mind of a critical thinker engages the person's intellectual abilities and personality traits.[4]
Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use in effective communication and problem solving, and a commitment to overcome egocentrism and sociocentrism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

I don't know the function of this section in the discussion.

You cannot deny in various time of your life you have give credence to one source of knowledge [science] [other reliable sources of knowledge] over other sources of knowledge [astrology, shamanism, myths, folk beliefs, etc.].
On what basis do you give preference on one source of knowledge over the other?

You just make your decision out of the blue, hearsays, because your preferred people agree with it, intuition, etc.
This is a cheap way to make decision and intellectually irresponsible.

'Out of the blue, hearsays,' is a confused term.
YOu told me that your morality proper would be accepted in the future in general. That is directly appealing to your own intuition.

But notice what you did. I applied what you have said in the past to what you were saying in this thread. At first you responded by defending your position now. Now you've decided to attack what you think is my position, my process. My process might be great or it might be terrible. But evne if it is terrible, my pointing out the way you contradict yourself could be correct.'

This is a basic fallacious approach to philosophical discussion.
Persion A asserts X.
X gets criticized by person B.
Person A attacks person B's approach. Not B's criticism. But something else.

This makes the assumption: if you are wrong about something then I must be right about this.
That's fallacious. We could both have poor epistemologies yet my criticism of yours if spot on.

It's been years where you do this, not understanding it's a fundamental confusion.

On the other hand, I am proposing we establish some sort of methods of assessments of the credibility and objectivity of each source of knowledge to the best of our ability based on rational and critical thinking basis.

So, one doesn't need an FSRC for some of the most critical decision-making.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As stated above;

It is reasonable to ask what is the FSRC of the methodology assessment of FSRC which indicate there is a likely-hood of an infinite regression.
In such a particular case, we need to consider how to recognize the limit of logical circularity and view the issue more widely in dialectical terms of continuous improvements.

This seems like a fancy way of saying you don't need an FSRC for this, suddenly.

In this way, the methodology of assessment must be subjected to continuous review to assess strengths and weaknesses, testing to promote continuous improvements.

But you need a FSRC to do that. You can't suddenly have a field of knowledge without an FSRC if you've been saying that all knowledge is conditioned on an FSRC.

Elsewhere, I have stated, to ensure consensus of the methodology of assessment of each FSRC we rely on the consensus of a set of criteria and agree upon the weightages to be given to each criteria.

OK, then either that's the FSRC or it isn't. If it isn't then it seems you don't have one. If it is the FSRC for FSKs, 1) I'm not sure why you didn't say it but 2) There is no intersubjective consensus on that.

Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Because the methodology is one level above all other individual FSRC, it would be considered to be a Meta-FRSC to be an exception from all individual FSRC.

That's a bare assertion.

What is rational must be grounded on critical thinking.

According to what FRSC? And where is the consensus within whatever that FSRC about what that is and that that is.

Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation.[1]
The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind,[2] thus a critical thinker is a person who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been trained and educated in its disciplines.[3]
Philosopher Richard W. Paul said that the mind of a critical thinker engages the person's intellectual abilities and personality traits.[4]
Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use in effective communication and problem solving, and a commitment to overcome egocentrism and sociocentrism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

I don't know the function of this section in the discussion.

You cannot deny in various time of your life you have give credence to one source of knowledge [science] [other reliable sources of knowledge] over other sources of knowledge [astrology, shamanism, myths, folk beliefs, etc.].
On what basis do you give preference on one source of knowledge over the other?

You just make your decision out of the blue, hearsays, because your preferred people agree with it, intuition, etc.
This is a cheap way to make decision and intellectually irresponsible.

'Out of the blue, hearsays,' is a confused term.
YOu told me that your morality proper would be accepted in the future in general. That is directly appealing to your own intuition.

But notice what you did. I applied what you have said in the past to what you were saying in this thread. At first you responded by defending your position now. Now you've decided to attack what you think is my position, my process. My process might be great or it might be terrible. But evne if it is terrible, my pointing out the way you contradict yourself could be correct.'

This is a basic fallacious approach to philosophical discussion.
Persion A asserts X.
X gets criticized by person B.
Person A attacks person B's approach. Not B's criticism. But something else.

This makes the assumption: if you are wrong about something then I must be right about this.
That's fallacious. We could both have poor epistemologies yet my criticism of yours if spot on.

It's been years where you do this, not understanding it's a fundamental confusion.

On the other hand, I am proposing we establish some sort of methods of assessments of the credibility and objectivity of each source of knowledge to the best of our ability based on rational and critical thinking basis.

So, one doesn't need an FSRC for some of the most critical decision-making.

You are the one who is confused due to your ignorance that there is a limitation to classical logic.
There are many other finer considerations beyond classical logic, e.g. paraconsistent logic, true contradictions, dialectical thinking, optimal self-referencing, etc.

I have raised a thread on the above;
Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42003

I don't need a FSRC for the FSRC.
At most what I need is a FSK for the FSRCs.

Btw,
do you need the following;
-the science of science
-the philosophy of philosophy
-the mathematics of mathematics
-truth of truths
- and so on??

What we have is a FSRC for each of ALL FRSC-ed knowledge.
Then we have a FSK to assess the credibility and objectivity of the methodology of assessment of all the FSRCs.

In addition, to be more precise and avoiding the circularity, the definition of a FSRC exclude the methodology of the assessment [a FSK not FSRC] of FSRCs.

What is critical to the above issue is not classical logic but what is the usefulness of the approach.

Based on your pettiness;
Why are you running away from the question below and introducing a deflection of your own?

You cannot deny in various time of your life you have give credence to one source of knowledge [science] [other reliable sources of knowledge] over other sources of knowledge [astrology, shamanism, myths, folk beliefs, etc.].
On what basis do you give preference on one source of knowledge over the other?

The point is if you reflect on the above, you will arrive at the point you must resort to a methodology to assess the credibility and objectivity of your choice.
And upon deeper reflection you will arrive at the answer you are seeking from me.

[godelian]

In the CPR of Kant under Transcendental Dialectic: Ideal, Kant argued it is impossible to prove God exists as real. [NK Smith's Translation]
1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
As a concession, Kant agreed one can think of God but only as an illusion, albeit a very useful illusion for various purposes.

Kant's argument can barely be termed a proof. A much better example, is Gödel's attempt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: as with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. It is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof – because it rests on five axioms, some of which are considered questionable. A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically.

Many philosophers have called the axioms into question. The first layer of criticism is simply that there are no arguments presented that give reasons why the axioms are true.

Any attempt at proving the existence of God will lead to proposing new system-wide axiomatic premises. The question will immediately arise: And how do you prove those? Even if you manage to prove these axiomatic premises from underlying ones, the same question will immediately arise concerning those too, leading to infinite regress.

Hence, according to Aristotle's foundational directive, we are wasting our time trying to prove the foundational beliefs of any axiomatic system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon non-inferential justified belief, or some secure foundation of certainty such as a conclusion inferred from a basis of sound premises.

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

Therefore, in line with Aristotle's analysis, I am not even interested in proof for foundational beliefs. If you accept the foundation, you can use it to start reasoning within the system that it supports. If you don't accept the foundation proposed, and you still want a system to use, then you will need to establish another foundation, and accept that instead.

In Islam, we have a foundationalist moral theory, i.e. the Quran, that allows us to build a large, digital, distributed database of jurisprudential rulings, covering the morality -- halal or haram? -- of pretty much every imaginable kind of human behavior.

Of course, you can decide to reject the foundations of Islam, but in that case, where is your database? What non-Muslims have to resort to, and also practically tend to do, is to invent new rulings on the fly. These new inventions are known to be inconsistent with their previous inventions, leading to contradictory conclusions. That is why they are lousy at morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the CPR of Kant under Transcendental Dialectic: Ideal, Kant argued it is impossible to prove God exists as real. [NK Smith's Translation]
1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
As a concession, Kant agreed one can think of God but only as an illusion, albeit a very useful illusion for various purposes.

Kant's argument can barely be termed a proof. A much better example, is Gödel's attempt:

Kant did not prove anything in the above case, he presented an argument.
Kant argued that ALL arguments [including Godel's which is an ontological claim] cannot prove God exists as real.

Have you understood [not agree] with Kant's claim "it is impossible to prove God exists as real"? to simply wave off Kant's argument as not valid.

Whatever Morality [including Islam] is off topic for this OP.

On topic, one of the strongest Islamic argument for God is Ghazali's Cosmological Argument for God which Craig adapted for his own use.
Another is that of Averroes (Ibn Rushd) which Aquinas adapted.

All the above arguments fell within Kant's refutation.

You have to read Kant thoroughly and understand [not agree with] the CPR before you can critique him reasonably.

[godelian]

You have to read Kant thoroughly and understand [not agree with] the CPR before you can critique him reasonably.

Gödel produced an ontological proof, using five axioms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

In fact, Gödel's ontological proof is enough as a counterexample for Kant's impossibility claim. So, Kant's assessment that it was not possible is simply wrong.

By the way, Kant's view on mathematics was largely incorrect. In critique of pure reason, he claims that mathematics is impure because Euclidean geometry uses visual puzzles to solve its problems. Kant wasn't aware of the fact that in the meanwhile these geometrical problems can be solved entirely symbolically, by switching to algebraic geometry.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subj ... reason.htm

On this successive synthesis of the productive imagination, in the generation of figures, is founded the mathematics of extension, or geometry, with its axioms, which express the conditions of sensuous intuition a priori, under which alone the schema of a pure conception of external intuition can exist; for example, “between two points only one straight line is possible,” “two straight lines cannot enclose a space,” etc. These are the axioms which properly relate only to quantities (quanta) as such.

However, there is no need for "sensuous intuition" in mathematics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism ... thematics)

In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality.

According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all

When Kant writes:

On the other hand, the self-evident propositions as to the relation of numbers, are certainly synthetical but not universal, like those of geometry, and for this reason cannot be called axioms, but numerical formulae.

Kant is again wrong. Peano arithmetic theory (for which the natural numbers are an interpreting model), is clearly axiomatic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

Kant clearly says that he does not like the principles of mathematics:

Such principles mathematical science possesses, but their application to experience, consequently their objective validity, nay the possibility of such a priori synthetical cognitions (the deduction thereof) rests entirely upon the pure understanding.

On this account, I shall not reckon among my principles those of mathematics;

What Kant writes about "proof" being possible or not, must be taken with a grain of salt, because he says quite a few things about mathematics that are simply wrong. Furthermore, if Kant does not reckon among his principles those of mathematics, what business does he have trying to propose an impossibility proof?

Gödel wrote an ontological proof that is mathematically legitimate. Nobody argues that Gödel's proof is "impossible". However, that does not solve the problem. His five axioms remain unproven, and that is exactly what his critics were going to point out. Hence, any ontological proof is just an exercise in infinite regress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have to read Kant thoroughly and understand [not agree with] the CPR before you can critique him reasonably.

I have to repeat the above again.

It appear you have not understood [not agree with] Kant thoroughly, thus your critique of Kant cannot be credible at all.

By the way, Kant's view on mathematics was largely incorrect. In critique of pure reason, he claims that mathematics is impure because Euclidean geometry uses visual puzzles to solve its problems. Kant wasn't aware of the fact that in the meanwhile these geometrical problems can be solved entirely symbolically, by switching to algebraic geometry.

I need the exact reference from Kant's CPR on the above.

There may be some controversies related the specific use of mathematics by Kant,
Kant had a very strong positive views of Mathematics in addition to Science as realistic while contrasting Metaphysics as illusory.

• [CPR] For one part of this Knowledge, the Mathematical, has long been of established reliability, and so gives rise to a favourable presumption as regards the other part, which may yet be of quite different nature. B8
  
  The Principles of Mathematical Employment will therefore be Unconditionally necessary, that is, Apodeictic [clearly beyond dispute]. B200

But those controversies has no impact on Kant's claim that ALL arguments for God are impossible to prove God is real.

[godelian]

I have to repeat the above again.

I have literally quoted from critique of pure reason.

It appear you have not understood [not agree with] Kant thoroughly, thus your critique of Kant cannot be credible at all.

I gave my opinion on three fragments of what Kant writes in his critique of pure reason. What Kant says in them about mathematics, is wrong. What exactly did I misunderstand? Did you actually read critique of pure reason yourself?

I need the exact reference from Kant's CPR on the above.

I already did.

There may be some controversies related the specific use of mathematics by Kant,

Kant clarified that he did not use mathematics. He is very explicit about that in critique of pure reason.

Kant had a very strong positive views of Mathematics in addition to Science as realistic while contrasting Metaphysics as illusory.

Kant clearly meant to say that mathematics is not pure reason. In his view, mathematics rests on an underlying core of pure reason but is itself not pure reason. He concludes that mostly from how Euclidean geometry works, which is indeed, based on visual puzzling, and therefore, the use and abuse of a posteriori sensory information. Euclidean geometry is no longer even taught like that, because that method is largely outdated nowadays, due to algebraization. In fact, that was already to an important extent the case in Kant's time, because Descartes had already introduced his coordinate system. So, Kant's failure to understand this, cannot be excused by the idea that this was part of later developments that came after Kant.

But those controversies has no impact on Kant's claim that ALL arguments for God are impossible to prove God is real.

Gödel has written a mathematically legitimate ontological proof. How can Kant possibly be right if Gödel's proof is clearly legitimate?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have to repeat the above again.

I have literally quoted from critique of pure reason.

It appear you have not understood [not agree with] Kant thoroughly, thus your critique of Kant cannot be credible at all.

I gave my opinion on three fragments of what Kant writes in his critique of pure reason. What Kant says in them about mathematics, is wrong. What exactly did I misunderstand? Did you actually read critique of pure reason yourself?

I need the exact reference from Kant's CPR on the above.

I already did.

There may be some controversies related the specific use of mathematics by Kant,

Kant clarified that he did not use mathematics. He is very explicit about that in critique of pure reason.

Kant had a very strong positive views of Mathematics in addition to Science as realistic while contrasting Metaphysics as illusory.

Kant clearly meant to say that mathematics is not pure reason. In his view, mathematics rests on an underlying core of pure reason but is itself not pure reason. He concludes that mostly from how Euclidean geometry works, which is indeed, based on visual puzzling, and therefore, the use and abuse of a posteriori sensory information. Euclidean geometry is no longer even taught like that, because that method is largely outdated nowadays, due to algebraization. In fact, that was already to an important extent the case in Kant's time, because Descartes had already introduced his coordinate system. So, Kant's failure to understand this, cannot be excused by the idea that this was part of later developments that came after Kant.

Reference mean the page number from the CRP usually in the form of [A... B...] so I can refer to the CPR myself.
Re the CPR I had spent 3 years full time reading and analyzing it since long ago and continuously reading it to the present.

But those controversies has no impact on Kant's claim that ALL arguments for God are impossible to prove God is real.

Gödel has written a mathematically legitimate ontological proof. How can Kant possibly be right if Gödel's proof is clearly legitimate?

You have to read and understand [not agree with] Kant's CPR re the contents listed in the OP to give a credible critique of it.

A summary of Kant's argument is this;

• 1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
  2. All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument,
  3. It is impossible to prove God exists as real at all.

Since Godel's argument is an ontological argument,
therefore it is impossible for Godel's argument, to prove God exists as real.

[godelian]

Reference mean the page number from the CRP usually in the form of [A... B...] so I can refer to the CPR myself.

For reasons of convenience, Gutenberg publishes the text in one long text file:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm

Page numbers depend on the publication format. They are not a stable referencing mechanism because the number of pages depends on the publication size and format.

Re the CPR I had spent 3 years full time reading and analyzing it since long ago and continuously reading it to the present.

I have only read it to see what Kant said about mathematics. Fundamentally, I am not much impressed with his classification of statements using the (analytic,synthetic) and (a priori,a posteriori) dichotomies. Even though it is not wrong, nobody has built anything on top of that. In mathematics, the dichotomy (analytic,synthetic) corresponds to (axiom, theorem). I have never run into a mathematical publication that argued that we should switch to Kant's vocabulary.

Since Godel's argument is an ontological argument,
therefore it is impossible for Godel's argument, to prove God exists as real.

This is certainly not any counterargument mentioned in the page on Gödel's ontological proof:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

Kant's alleged impossibility is simply not even mentioned in this page. His work is just not considered relevant enough for that purpose. The critics deemed relevant enough are: Sobel, Koons, Anderson, Gettings, Oppy, Spitzer, and Fuhrmann. For historical reasons, Anselm and Leibniz are also mentioned, mostly because they attempted something similar. It is obvious why Kant is not mentioned in this page. There is no mention of Kant because his impossibility proof is considered worthless nonsense.