Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

[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]

• Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason .... 485
  Section 1. The Ideal-in-General ..... 485
  Section 2. The Transcendental Ideal .... 487
  Section 3. The Arguments of Speculative Reason in Proof of the Existence of a Supreme Being .... 495
  Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ... 500
  Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ...... 507
  Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
  Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
  Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon
  Speculative Principles of Reason . . . . . 525

The summary of the 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.

As a concession, Kant agreed one can think of God but only as an illusion, albeit a very useful illusion for various purposes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
My other proofs of the impossibility of God:

New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

All arguments [speculative] end up with the Ontological Argument.

There is not indeed, in this field, much room for choice,
since all merely Speculative proofs in the end bring us always back to one and the same proof, namely, the Ontological;
and I have therefore no real Ground to fear the fertile ingenuity of the Dogmatic champions of superSensible 1 Reason.
A639 B667
I shall not, however, decline the challenge to discover the fallacy in any attempt of this kind, and so to nullify its claims;
and this I can indeed do without considering myself a particularly combative person.

Theoretical Knowledge is Speculative if it concerns an Object, or those Concepts of an Object, which cannot be reached in any Experience. A635 B663

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

Notes:
My other proofs of the impossibility of God:

The OP is not a proof. Copy pasting the table of contents from Kant's work is not a proof. It's not even an OP in most forums.
And it's attempted proofs for the others. It's an idiosyncratic appeal to authority, but not even an effective one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
My other proofs of the impossibility of God:

The OP is not a proof. Copy pasting the table of contents from Kant's work is not a proof. It's not even an OP in most forums.
And it's attempted proofs for the others. It's an idiosyncratic appeal to authority, but not even an effective one.

So blind as usual.

The OP is Kant's argument that it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real.

What I linked in #2 are my own arguments.

[FlashDangerpants]

Did Kant actually say that "All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument" or did he only say that those based on a specific principle that God is the most realest thing there is (ens realissimum) reduce thus?

I am fairly sure that if you ask IC or one of the other God Botherers they should be able to come up with some arguments on behalf of God's existence against which the rejoinder that existence is not that sort of predicate would not be quite so relelvant.

Notes: KIV

That Notes thing you do, is a bit of autistic ritual isn't it?

[Flannel Jesus]

But if all facts are based on frameworks and systems of knowledge, and nothing can be deemed true or false if you're operating outside of that framework and system of knowledge, then all I have to do is declare a FSK where 'God exists as Real' is true - or, more briefly for the native english speakers, "God Exists".

I call my FSK the He-Man Women Haters Club, and the first axiom of this FSK is God Exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But if all facts are based on frameworks and systems of knowledge, and nothing can be deemed true or false if you're operating outside of that framework and system of knowledge, then all I have to do is declare a FSK where 'God exists as Real' is true - or, more briefly for the native english speakers, "God Exists".

I call my FSK the He-Man Women Haters Club, and the first axiom of this FSK is God Exists.

I have discussed the above many times.

A FSRC [FSK, a sub] is not confined with ONE subject or a loose mob of subjects.
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.

At present there many FSRC in existence but they all have varying degrees of objectivity.
see: Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

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.

At present there are already loads of theological FSRC where the first axiom of this FSK is God Exists.
But when assessed the credibility and objectivity of these theological-FSRC, their credibility and objectivity is rated at not higher 0.1 credibility objectivity which can be said to be near zero reality, credibility & objectivity.
Alternatively we can also rate the theological FSRC at 99.9% falsity, subjective or unrealistic.

The point the whatever the FSRC, it has some kind of pragmatic usefulness to certain of humans as part of its community.
As such whatever the decisions taken, they must be qualified to the known variables of the FSRC.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did Kant actually say that "All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument" or did he only say that those based on a specific principle that God is the most realest thing there is (ens realissimum) reduce thus?

I am fairly sure that if you ask IC or one of the other God Botherers they should be able to come up with some arguments on behalf of God's existence against which the rejoinder that existence is not that sort of predicate would not be quite so relevant.

As I have informed Kant's approach is based on 'completeness' and 'systematicity'.

Kant categories of 'ontological' 'Cosmological' and physico-theological cover all-there-is.
1. The physico-teological cover all particulars, individuals, & human related variables
2. The Cosmological cover the whole Universes [Cosmos] that can experienced via the empirically possible.
3. The ontological cover all "existence" that can be thought of.

The above cover the full range of whatever approach the existence of God is claimed from.
Thus all claims of God exists are covered within 1, 2 and 3 wherein the ontological is explicit or implicitly embedded in 1 & 2.

Notes: KIV

That Notes thing you do, is a bit of autistic ritual isn't it?

The "Notes: KIV" is thoughtfully done with intelligence, pragmatism, efficiency and wisdom.

It is obvious almost all threads raised with the specific philosophical category here goes off topic and are turned into a dumpster full of shits.

As I had stated, all the threads I have raised are sort of "references" for my projects.
If I have a relevant and critical point to add to my OP later and to avoid lengthening the OP, then I can add the points to one of the "Notes: KIV".

If say, a thread of mine had gone into 20 pages full of shit and still going on, to post the relevant point among the shit is not easy and efficient to trace the point again.
But if I post it in my reserved "Notes: KIV" then it is easy for me to trace them in the first few posts.

I will using the Notes: KIV as the thread proceeds.
I have already done that!
Where Kant claimed in CPR - all god argument end up with the ontological.
viewtopic.php?p=704128#p704128

[Flannel Jesus]

But if all facts are based on frameworks and systems of knowledge, and nothing can be deemed true or false if you're operating outside of that framework and system of knowledge, then all I have to do is declare a FSK where 'God exists as Real' is true - or, more briefly for the native english speakers, "God Exists".

I call my FSK the He-Man Women Haters Club, and the first axiom of this FSK is God Exists.

I have discussed the above many times.

A FSRC [FSK, a sub] is not confined with ONE subject or a loose mob of subjects.
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.

At present there many FSRC in existence but they all have varying degrees of objectivity.
see: Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

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.

But facts can only be facts from within a particular FSK. I'm not operating within the fsk that affirms the fact that science has the highest degree of credibility. I'm operating from a different fsk where that isn't a fact. I'm operating from an FSK that says religions have the highest degree of credibility.

It's called the he man women haters club.

[Iwannaplato]

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?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But if all facts are based on frameworks and systems of knowledge, and nothing can be deemed true or false if you're operating outside of that framework and system of knowledge, then all I have to do is declare a FSK where 'God exists as Real' is true - or, more briefly for the native english speakers, "God Exists".

I call my FSK the He-Man Women Haters Club, and the first axiom of this FSK is God Exists.

I have discussed the above many times.

A FSRC [FSK, a sub] is not confined with ONE subject or a loose mob of subjects.
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.

At present there many FSRC in existence but they all have varying degrees of objectivity.
see: Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

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.

But facts can only be facts from within a particular FSK. I'm not operating within the fsk that affirms the fact that science has the highest degree of credibility. I'm operating from a different fsk where that isn't a fact. I'm operating from an FSK that says religions have the highest degree of credibility.

It's called the he man women haters club.

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.

[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.