Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

[Sculptor]

Godel's definition goes as following:



So, his approach is to define a God-like entity as having all positive properties. This is very much in line with the 99 attributes/names of Allah in Islam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam

Next, Godel introduces 5 axioms from which the existence of God necessarily follows:

□∃x G(x)

("There exists a God-like object "x")

So, "exists" is expressed by the standard first-order logic's existential quantifier ∃, while the modal modifier (it's higher-order "modal logic") for "necessity" is expressed by the symbol □.

In fact, to fully understand Godel's conclusion, it is necessary to fully understand the axioms upon which his argument rests.

That's one idea,
There are many verions of god, and various claims about the manner of its existence.
WHy is your one more valid than others?

That wasn't my take on things. It's Godel's approach. I think that it has some merit. I have also pointed out, however, in previous comments, that the issue is indeed the five axioms with which Godel has replaced God as a basic belief.

Those five propositions are a tissue, and could apply equally badly to any fiction.

What is meant by "basic"?

[godelian]

Those five propositions are a tissue, and could apply equally badly to any fiction.

What is meant by "basic"?

You can find an in-depth discussion on the matter in the page on Godel's proof:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6 ... ical_proof

[billssw]

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.

According to our " CYCLE SYSTEM" , " GOD IS WELL BEYOND EXISTS".

Our classic limit time-space universe is only up to the 6th dimension which The laws of physics take effect, and 7 dimensions is beyond the law of cause and effect because it is composed of " UNLIMITED DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY " and so it is unlimit time-space.

WHY WE SAY THAT GOD IS BEYOND EXISTS , because when we mention about " exist" , it is automatically refer to our classic limit time-space universe which abide by the law of cause and effect.

However , according to " CYCLE SYSTEM" , GOD IS INVOLING IN THE 8th dimension and 0 dimension at the same time , if 8th dimension is center of circle and GOD'S BODY, then 0 dimension just GOD'S SOUL and EVERYTHING BEHIND the center of circle.

[seeds]

As I had stated, to prove God is real, you need to provide evidence of God directly of itself for verification and justification God is really real.

And what if God does not want to be proven to be real?

Do you actually believe that a Being who is capable of creating the vast order of the universe out of the living fabric of its very own being, couldn't attenuate our awareness in such a way as to keep us from discovering the truth?

I know this question means nothing to you, but how many times do I have to point out the possibility that if God were to reveal itself (along with the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny), that it could jeopardize the very purpose and reason for why the universe was created in the first place?

And lastly, even though the answer to the following question is implicit within the question itself,...

...if it is indeed possible that God truly does exist as a real (yet transcendent) Entity, then where do you find the gall to question the motives of a Being that is as far above us humans in scope and consciousness, as humans are above amoebas?
_______

Reality is an imperative 'hallmark' of sanity.
If you do not want to ground God on the basis of reality, then you are associating god with insanity from the start.

I used the following quote in one of your other threads...

The entire visible universe, what Bishop Berkeley called "the mighty frame of the world," rests ultimately on a strange quantum kind of being no more substantial than a promise.

It was stated by physicist Nick Herbert and was based on his assessment of Werner Heisenberg's conclusions of how what we call "reality" is composed of a substance that doesn't seem to be very real itself, but is more or less...

"...a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle's philosophy..." — Wiki

Think about it V, if according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the foundation of what we call "reality" can be considered to be...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

...then what the heck are you referring to when you say that...

"...Reality is an imperative 'hallmark' of sanity..." ?

It would seem to me that true "sanity" is being able to rise above our biased assumptions about the world in order to make a more accurate and honest assessment of what the word "reality" actually means.

The bottom line is that what you are calling "reality" is nothing more than a "holographic-like" illusion that is founded upon correlated patterns (or fields) of energy and information.

I would insist that those "fields of information" that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe are simply higher and more ordered versions of the same fields of information that underpin our own thoughts and dreams,...

...but you're just not ready for it, and would no doubt throw a hissy-fit and accuse me of being in the throes of an existential crisis due to a fear of death.

Anyway, with all that being said, how about you provide me with a direct and pertinent answer to the first question I asked of you in the post you responded to.

And that question is...

"...What if God does not want to be proven to be real?..."
_______

[Sculptor]

Those five propositions are a tissue, and could apply equally badly to any fiction.

What is meant by "basic"?

You can find an in-depth discussion on the matter in the page on Godel's proof:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6 ... ical_proof

I aksed YOU what is meant by "basisc" not wiki

[godelian]

Those five propositions are a tissue, and could apply equally badly to any fiction.

What is meant by "basic"?

You can find an in-depth discussion on the matter in the page on Godel's proof:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6 ... ical_proof

I aksed YOU what is meant by "basisc" not wiki

In general, the base case is the termination point in a recursive algorithm, necessary to prevent the recursive algorithm from going into an infinite loop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion ... r_science)

A recursive function definition has one or more base cases, meaning input(s) for which the function produces a result trivially (without recurring), and one or more recursive cases, meaning input(s) for which the program recurs (calls itself). For example, the factorial function can be defined recursively by the equations 0! = 1 and, for all n > 0, n! = n(n − 1)!. Neither equation by itself constitutes a complete definition; the first is the base case, and the second is the recursive case. Because the base case breaks the chain of recursion, it is sometimes also called the "terminating case".

Neglecting to write a base case, or testing for it incorrectly, can cause an infinite loop.

Aristotle uses the discovery of the necessary existence of a base case in multiple places across his publications:

(1) The chain is recursive
(2) The chain does not continue forever; it terminates; there is no infinite regress at work
(3) Hence, there must be a base case

For example, in Physics, Aristotle writes:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.8.viii.html

If then everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and the movent must either itself be moved by something else or not, and in the former case there must be some first movent that is not itself moved by anything else, while in the case of the immediate movent being of this kind there is no need of an intermediate movent that is also moved (for it is impossible that there should be an infinite series of movents, each of which is itself moved by something else, since in an infinite series there is no first term)-if then everything that is in motion is moved by something, and the first movent is moved but not by anything else, it much be moved by itself.

In Posterior analytics, Aristotle writes:

https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.1.i.html

The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.

There are two types of programmers. The ones who can write recursive algorithms and the ones who cannot. If there are only recursive-incapable programmers on a team, they will invariably fail at building any non-trivial system, because there are always small but core parts of the system that are recursive and that they cannot build. Therefore, there always needs to be at least one programmer on the team who can program recursive algorithms.

The same holds true for epistemology. The entire field was built by just a few people who are capable of handling recursion.

Aristotle was an excellent recursive-capable programmer. I wonder what incredible programs he would have written, if he had had access to a computer?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's other arguments are so confused that they do not commit him to anything.

The whole of Kant's CPR [except the penultimate and last part] is on long argument culminating in the above claims in the OP.
Have you understood [not agree with] Kant's CPR to make the above critiques and refutations?

Pretty much nothing of what Kant says, is actionable. It is just nebulous nonsense. The only claim that truly commits him, is his opinion that exists(n) is not definably as a predicate. Kant is wrong about that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the existential quantifier in first-order predicate logic. Kant's views are simply in violation of the definition of standard logic.

Standard logic?
That is classical logic with merely has its limited use.
There are other versions of logic other than classical and standard logic.

But do you know the validity and advantages of whatever logic is leveraged on its limitations and crudeness, i.e. that all logical elements are based on abstractions [universals] and not on reality [the particular].

That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.
CPR Bix

• All men are mortal.
  Socrates is a man.
  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

As you can see, logic only deal with the forms and the universal, not the particular.
Each particular man is more than 'man-in-general' but logic is only valid in dealing with man-in-general the universal, abstraction and form rather than the more realistic particular man.
As such, whatever the conclusion of logic, it is never realistic.

This is why I stated, for any logical conclusion to be real it must be evidenced, tested, verified and justified as real based on the gold standard of reality and objectivity, i.e. the scientific system or other system of reality.

Get it?

Pretty much nothing of what Kant says, is actionable. It is just nebulous nonsense.

That is why you are ignorant philosophically on this point.
Kant vision and mission is as follows;

1. What can we know - Epistemology
2. What can we do - Morality and Ethics
3. What can we hope for - perpetual peace.

What does your religion hope for you?
Paradise with 72 virgins even if it cost untold violence and sufferings to non-believers or even if the human species is extinct with nukes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what if God does not want to be proven to be real?

Do you actually believe that a Being who is capable of creating the vast order of the universe out of the living fabric of its very own being, couldn't attenuate our awareness in such a way as to keep us from discovering the truth?

I know this question means nothing to you, but how many times do I have to point out the possibility that if God were to reveal itself (along with the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny), that it could jeopardize the very purpose and reason for why the universe was created in the first place?

And lastly, even though the answer to the following question is implicit within the question itself,...

...if it is indeed possible that God truly does exist as a real (yet transcendent) Entity, then where do you find the gall to question the motives of a Being that is as far above us humans in scope and consciousness, as humans are above amoebas?
_______

Reality is an imperative 'hallmark' of sanity.
If you do not want to ground God on the basis of reality, then you are associating god with insanity from the start.

I used the following quote in one of your other threads...

The entire visible universe, what Bishop Berkeley called "the mighty frame of the world," rests ultimately on a strange quantum kind of being no more substantial than a promise.

It was stated by physicist Nick Herbert and was based on his assessment of Werner Heisenberg's conclusions of how what we call "reality" is composed of a substance that doesn't seem to be very real itself, but is more or less...

"...a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle's philosophy..." — Wiki

Think about it V, if according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the foundation of what we call "reality" can be considered to be...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

...then what the heck are you referring to when you say that...

"...Reality is an imperative 'hallmark' of sanity..." ?

It would seem to me that true "sanity" is being able to rise above our biased assumptions about the world in order to make a more accurate and honest assessment of what the word "reality" actually means.

The bottom line is that what you are calling "reality" is nothing more than a "holographic-like" illusion that is founded upon correlated patterns (or fields) of energy and information.

I would insist that those "fields of information" that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe are simply higher and more ordered versions of the same fields of information that underpin our own thoughts and dreams,...

...but you're just not ready for it, and would no doubt throw a hissy-fit and accuse me of being in the throes of an existential crisis due to a fear of death.

Anyway, with all that being said, how about you provide me with a direct and pertinent answer to the first question I asked of you in the post you responded to.

And that question is...

"...What if God does not want to be proven to be real?..."
_______

Where is the link to that quote re Berkeley?
In any case, that is not within the context of reality we are discussing here.

The 'reality' that matters is this;
What is reality [and the like] is conditioned upon a human-based FSRC [framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition {knowledge}];
of which the scientific FSRC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.

"...What if God does not want to be proven to be real?..."
This is ridiculous!
For the matter of reality, it is useless to deal with 'if' conditional in this case, especially there are too many IFs, i.e.
If God exists and if God does not want to be proven to be real?
How can you know God does not want to be proven to be 'real' [FSRC-ed] when you have not proven God to be real [FSRC-ed]?
It is so messy and thus a non-starter.

I say again,
reality [FRSC-ed] is the hallmark of sanity.

What is critical relevant here is theists want to prove God is real.
If theists do not want 'the proof - God is real' then they are implying their God is not-real, i.e. false and illusory.

[godelian]

Standard logic?
That is classical logic with merely has its limited use.
There are other versions of logic other than classical and standard logic.

Gödel ended up using higher-order modal logic. Switching to higher-order logic is generally not considered a plus but a minus. There is actually an outspoken preference for first-order logic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindstr%C ... 7s_theorem
In mathematical logic, Lindström's theorem (named after Swedish logician Per Lindström, who published it in 1969) states that first-order logic is the strongest logic[1] (satisfying certain conditions, e.g. closure under classical negation) having both the (countable) compactness property and the (downward) Löwenheim–Skolem property.[2]

When possible, quantification over properties is replaced by an inline, infinite axiom schema in order to remain in first-order logic. This does not seem to be possible in Gödel's ontological proof. Otherwise, he would surely also have applied a complexity-reducing hack.

As such, whatever the conclusion of logic, it is never realistic.

That is not how we define realism and anti-realism in mathematics. It has nothing to do with correspondence to the physical universe.

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

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same.

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities.

When we talk about realism in mathematics, it is about the correspondence to an abstract, Platonic world.

An ontological proof quantifies over an abstract, Platonic multiverse in which our own universe is just one member:

Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers.[1] Points relevant to the ontological proof include:
4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

The proof[8][10] uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths. In the most common semantics for modal logic, many "possible worlds" are considered. A truth is necessary if it is true in all possible worlds. By contrast, if a statement happens to be true in our world, but is false in another world, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.

When reasoning about the existence of God, it does not make sense to reason from within this physical universe. God created this physical universe. Therefore, God's existence precedes the physical universe. Gödel therefore switched to a multiverse approach in which our universe appears and ultimately disappears.

If we want to reach conclusions that aim to be realistic across the various universes of a multiverse, then modal logic is the way to go.

[godelian]

Kant vision and mission is as follows;
1. What can we know - Epistemology
2. What can we do - Morality and Ethics
3. What can we hope for - perpetual peace.

Aristotle was like a really good violin player. The instrument is difficult to master but Aristotle clearly had the talent to do it. Kant, on the other hand, is not a good violin player. He actually does not master any difficult instrument at all. He just has a big mouth without anything to show for. Kant spouts endless pages of nebulous nonsense that is not actionable in any way. When Kant very, very occasionally says something that is actionable, then it is simply wrong. Kant cannot commit to anything because if he does, we can trivially point out that his bird simply does not fly. While Aristotle is truly a grandee in philosophy, Kant is clearly not. It is not just at mathematics that Kant was inept. Seriously, concerning Kant, the question remains: Was Kant actually good at anything at all?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Standard logic?
That is classical logic with merely has its limited use.
There are other versions of logic other than classical and standard logic.

Gödel ended up using higher-order modal logic. Switching to higher-order logic is generally not considered a plus but a minus. There is actually an outspoken preference for first-order logic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindstr%C ... 7s_theorem
In mathematical logic, Lindström's theorem (named after Swedish logician Per Lindström, who published it in 1969) states that first-order logic is the strongest logic[1] (satisfying certain conditions, e.g. closure under classical negation) having both the (countable) compactness property and the (downward) Löwenheim–Skolem property.[2]

When possible, quantification over properties is replaced by an inline, infinite axiom schema in order to remain in first-order logic. This does not seem to be possible in Gödel's ontological proof. Otherwise, he would surely also have applied a complexity-reducing hack.

As such, whatever the conclusion of logic, it is never realistic.

That is not how we define realism and anti-realism in mathematics. It has nothing to do with correspondence to the physical universe.

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

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same.

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities.

When we talk about realism in mathematics, it is about the correspondence to an abstract, Platonic world.

An ontological proof quantifies over an abstract, Platonic multiverse in which our own universe is just one member:

Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers.[1] Points relevant to the ontological proof include:
4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

The proof[8][10] uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths. In the most common semantics for modal logic, many "possible worlds" are considered. A truth is necessary if it is true in all possible worlds. By contrast, if a statement happens to be true in our world, but is false in another world, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.

When reasoning about the existence of God, it does not make sense to reason from within this physical universe. God created this physical universe. Therefore, God's existence precedes the physical universe. Gödel therefore switched to a multiverse approach in which our universe appears and ultimately disappears.

If we want to reach conclusions that aim to be realistic across the various universes of a multiverse, then modal logic is the way to go.

Realism is a very loose word.

What is reality [proper] is contingent upon an embodied human based Framework and System of Emergence & Realization of Reality and Cognition {knowledge}] FSRC.

Platonic realism is not realistic [proper].
If it is not realistic then it is illusory, unreal, and false.
In that case, you are reasoning your existence of God from falsehoods.

"God created this physical universe"
You have to prove God is real [not illusory] before you can claim a real God created a real physical universe.

It does not follow that an unreal God created a real physical universe.

Are you familiar with the contention between the Ontological [reason] versus the Cosmological [Physical Universe] argument for God's existence.
The ontological argument is condemned for being out of touch with reality.
So many theists favor the cosmological argument which starts with the real physical universe which is justified by science.

Example Craig's Cosmological Argument he adapted from Ghazali.

• 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist. [Science - Big Bang]
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the above the cause is claimed to be the first-cause which they call God.

At least the cosmological argument is reasoned from a real physical universe compared to to the ontological which is reasoned out of thin air.

But Kant argued the cosmological has a hidden ontological basis [necessary being] within it.

Godel's argument is not realistic [proper].
Kant argued all arguments for god existence [including those which start with real experiences] all end up with the ontological argument which is baseless.

Theists must claim for a real god, not a false god based on logic and reasoning.
Your god condemned idol-god but your god itself is an idol, i.e. merely a linguistic idol.
You need to claim your god is real [not an idol] and provide justifications your god is real, else it is unreal, illusory and false

[godelian]

Realism is a very loose word.
Platonic realism is not realistic [proper].
If it is not realistic then it is illusory, unreal, and false.
Godel's argument is not realistic [proper].

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. I choose to work with the mathematical definition for realism. You can obviously choose to work with some other definition.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant vision and mission is as follows;
1. What can we know - Epistemology
2. What can we do - Morality and Ethics
3. What can we hope for - perpetual peace.

Aristotle was like a really good violin player. The instrument is difficult to master but Aristotle clearly had the talent to do it. Kant, on the other hand, is not a good violin player. He actually does not master any difficult instrument at all. He just has a big mouth without anything to show for. Kant spouts endless pages of nebulous nonsense that is not actionable in any way. When Kant very, very occasionally says something that is actionable, then it is simply wrong. Kant cannot commit to anything because if he does, we can trivially point out that his bird simply does not fly. While Aristotle is truly a grandee in philosophy, Kant is clearly not. It is not just at mathematics that Kant was inept. Seriously, concerning Kant, the question remains: Was Kant actually good at anything at all?

What was Newton, Einstein, Bohr in Physics and all other scientists good at other than provide theoretical knowledge.
You cannot be that ignorant that theoretical science and other fields of knowledge has contributed to humanity in terms of real utilities.

Kant in fact had a one-up on all the philosophers before him.
Kant is often polled at the top as the greatest philosopher of all times.

Many of Kant's thoughts had been translated into practices that has benefited humanity.
Kant's vision and mission will provide an efficient model for humanity to progress toward the future.

Indirectly through19th century intermediaries, Immanuel Kant (1720-1804) has had an enormous influence on cognitive research, indeed could be viewed as the intellectual godfather of cognitive science. Link

Your ignorance of the above reflect that your range of knowledge of philosophy is narrow and shallow.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Realism is a very loose word.
Platonic realism is not realistic [proper].
If it is not realistic then it is illusory, unreal, and false.
Godel's argument is not realistic [proper].

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. I choose to work with the mathematical definition for realism. You can obviously choose to work with some other definition.

You have to read up on the criticisms of platonic realism, the problem of universals, platonic forms and its other related problems.
Then read up the more realistic alternative of the reality-of-science or scientific reality.
(in this case scientific antirealism, not the bastardized ideological scientific realism)

[godelian]

What was Newton, Einstein, Bohr in Physics and all other scientists good at other than provide theoretical knowledge.
You cannot be that ignorant that theoretical science and other fields of knowledge has contributed to humanity in terms of real utilities.

Science is certainly useful, but my own personal interest is in mathematics. Science is about experimental testing. I do not intend to buy lab equipment to experimentally test things. Therefore, I do not feel particularly included in the process. Mathematics is different. It is pure abstraction. No need to buy test equipment.

Kant in fact had a one-up on all the philosophers before him.
Kant is often polled at the top as the greatest philosopher of all times.

Kant was inept, and not just in mathematics. He was the nonsense-spouting king of ineptitude.

Many of Kant's thoughts had been translated into practices that has benefited humanity.
Kant's vision and mission will provide an efficient model for humanity to progress toward the future.

We never refer to Kant in mathematics, because he has contributed absolutely nothing of value to the field. As I have pointed out previously, his argument about the undefinability of existence is merely absurd nonsense. When Kant occasionally writes something actionable, it does not stand up to scrutiny. What progress could ever come from Kant's rampant ineptitude?

The entire field of mathematics has been ignoring Kant for two centuries now. His inept ramblings on mathematics are not quoted or even mentioned anywhere. He is rightfully considered the king of the idiots. Did we really miss anything? In that case, what exactly?