Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is often claimed that 'proof' is valid within mathematics.
But the point is there is no absolute meaning to a word.

In that case, there is also no absolute meaning to "Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real". Why would there be an absolute meaning to the term "impossible"?

Are you familiar with Wittgenstein's language-games?
The meaning of words are only meaningful within the rules and the confines of a specific language-game.
The meaning of Words that are valid only within a specific framework and system, e.g. sports, science, mathematics, legal, social, etc.
For example the terms like Queen, King, Castle, Knight within the game of Chess cannot be simply be applicable outside a chess game as within the rules of the International Chess Federation.
It is the same with certain terms specific within Physics which do not have relevance within other framework and system [like literature, etc.].

Note [stated in above post] difference between Everyday "proof" vs Everyday "proof".

Mathematical proofs provide absolute certainty within a specific system.
Everyday "proof" offers varying degrees of confidence based on the evidence presented.
So, when evaluating something as "proof," it's important to consider the context.
In math, it's about a watertight logical argument.
In everyday situations, it's about how convincing the evidence is for a conclusion.

Thus when word 'proof' is presented, the first thing that must be taken into account is 'under what context'.
Even though proof is normally associated with mathematics, we cannot be pedantic and absolute with it.
Thus it is critical the context must be defined.

In the case of Kant's 'proof' and 'impossible' they are qualified within the general use, philosophical context and other relevant context but definitely not in the mathematical context.

Furthermore, Gödel wrote a proof, which introduces 5 underlying basic beliefs from which he proves his claim.
Hence, Kant's "it is impossible to prove" is clearly bullshit.

As explained above you simply cannot conflate mathematics with philosophical in the above case.

Mathematical proofs provide absolute certainty within a specific system related the mathematics.

Last but not least, arguing the impossibility of a proof can only be done in mathematics. Kant's long-winding word-salad rants in his critique of pure reason are simply not suitable for that purpose.

As argued above, you simply cannot claim an absolute meaning for a word, in this case, 'proof'.

It would be intellectually wise not to condemn Kant's CPR without fully understanding the CPR, especially when Kant is often polled as one of the Greatest W Philosopher of all times.

[godelian]

Note [stated in above post] difference between Everyday "proof" vs Everyday "proof".

In a philosophical debate, it is the definition provided by epistemology that matters. The epistemology of science is adamant on the issue: science does not provide proof. Only mathematics/logic does.

In math, it's about a watertight logical argument.
In everyday situations, it's about how convincing the evidence is for a conclusion.

The possibility or impossibility of ontological proofs is not an every day situation.

In the case of Kant's 'proof' and 'impossible' they are qualified within the general use, philosophical context and other relevant context but definitely not in the mathematical context.

In that case, his unqualified impossibility is clearly not a counterargument to Godel's mathematically unobjectionable proof.

That would be the same as Kant claiming that a proof for Fermat's Last Theorem is not possible and then use such unsubstantiated claim to reject Andrew Wiles' proof.

Furthermore, Gödel wrote a proof, which introduces 5 underlying basic beliefs from which he proves his claim.
Hence, Kant's "it is impossible to prove" is clearly bullshit.

As explained above you simply cannot conflate mathematics with philosophical in the above case.

Kant's non-mathematical rant is not a counterargument to Godel's mathematically unobjectionable proof. Mathematical proof is obviously superior to Kant's nebulous word salads in his "critique of pure reason".

As argued above, you simply cannot claim an absolute meaning for a word, in this case, 'proof'.

Godel's proof is "proof" in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Therefore, Kant's impossibility of such proof is mathematically objectionable nonsense. Godel's proof is a constructivist witness to the fact that Kant is completely wrong.

It would be intellectually wise not to condemn Kant's CPR without fully understanding the CPR, especially when Kant is often polled as one of the Greatest W Philosopher of all times.

On what grounds would Kant deserve the qualification of "Greatest W Philosopher of all times? How exactly do you rank philosophers from worst to best? According to what objective criteria?

Furthermore, you've got it upside down.

A person grows in merit through the merit of his work, and not the other way around. You argue that Kant's work would be great because Kant would himself be great.

Is that really a counterargument for Kant being clearly wrong?

As I have pointed out in detail in previous comments, Critique of Pure Reason is full of glaring errors. Kant writes so many errors about mathematics that it deserves the title of "Bullshit of his century".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note [stated in above post] difference between Everyday "proof" vs Everyday "proof".

In a philosophical debate, it is the definition provided by epistemology that matters. The epistemology of science is adamant on the issue: science does not provide proof. Only mathematics/logic does.

In math, it's about a watertight logical argument.
In everyday situations, it's about how convincing the evidence is for a conclusion.

The possibility or impossibility of ontological proofs is not an every day situation.

'Every day situation' to be taken as any 'proof' that is non-mathematic.
In this case, it is philosophical and epistemology in general.

In the case of Kant's 'proof' and 'impossible' they are qualified within the general use, philosophical context and other relevant context but definitely not in the mathematical context.

In that case, his unqualified impossibility is clearly not a counterargument to Godel's mathematically unobjectionable proof.

That would be the same as Kant claiming that a proof for Fermat's Last Theorem is not possible and then use such unsubstantiated claim to reject Andrew Wiles' proof.

Kant's counter is not directly disputing the mathematical part of Godel's mathematical proof which is only valid within Godel's mathematical system.

It is just like Kant will not dispute 1+1=2 within the rules of Arithmetic.
But Godel's argument or 1+1=2 is useless unless it is transposed to reality.
I presume you understand GIGO.
If you input "apples" into 1+1=2, you ultimately have to prove the output apples are real.
Thus whatever model you prove God exists, ultimately you have to prove [justify with evidences] that your God is real.
According to Kant, whatever method [Godel's or any] one proves God exists, it is impossible to prove such a God is real.
Where is the direct evidences for God for verification and justification God exists as real?

Note this non-Kantian counter to God Exists as Real:
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Furthermore, Gödel wrote a proof, which introduces 5 underlying basic beliefs from which he proves his claim.
Hence, Kant's "it is impossible to prove" is clearly bullshit.

As explained above you simply cannot conflate mathematics with philosophical in the above case.

Kant's non-mathematical rant is not a counterargument to Godel's mathematically unobjectionable proof. Mathematical proof is obviously superior to Kant's nebulous word salads in his "critique of pure reason".

As argued above, you simply cannot claim an absolute meaning for a word, in this case, 'proof'.

Godel's proof is "proof" in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Therefore, Kant's impossibility of such proof is mathematically objectionable nonsense. Godel's proof is a constructivist witness to the fact that Kant is completely wrong.

It would be intellectually wise not to condemn Kant's CPR without fully understanding the CPR, especially when Kant is often polled as one of the Greatest W Philosopher of all times.

On what grounds would Kant deserve the qualification of "Greatest W Philosopher of all times? How exactly do you rank philosophers from worst to best? According to what objective criteria?

Furthermore, you've got it upside down.

A person grows in merit through the merit of his work, and not the other way around. You argue that Kant's work would be great because Kant would himself be great.

Is that really a counterargument for Kant being clearly wrong?

As I have pointed out in detail in previous comments, Critique of Pure Reason is full of glaring errors. Kant writes so many errors about mathematics that it deserves the title of "Bullshit of his century".

You understand what is a poll?
Again there is no absolute to poll results, it merely show there is consensus and some substance to the results.
The results will only make sense to those who are very familiar with a wider perspective of philosophy.

As I had stated, the CPR is not a book on mathematical theory.
The CPR is philosophical book and the mathematical elements therein are secondary.
If the mathematic elements used as examples and if any are wrong, they do not have a significant impact to the CPR because the main argument of the CPR can be supported by other elements and examples.
Other than the minor Euclid issue, most of the complains related to mathematics referred by Kant are very contentious which I can argue Kant is right in using them.

You got a problem here with being too pedantic and dogmatic while insisting on ignoring context.
Are you familiar with the Principle of Charity within Philosophy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Also note, we are doing philosophy [primary] here, and this is not a Mathematics Forum like this one;
https://community.wolfram.com/content?c ... athematics

When you are in a Philosophy Forum you are obliged to comply with the rules of its language-game.

[godelian]

Kant's counter is not directly disputing the mathematical part of Godel's mathematical proof which is only valid within Godel's mathematical system.

Kant did not explicitly limit his claim to a particular situation. In fact, if Kant's claim were valid, it would also apply only within the system that he had specified. The problem is that Kant does not even have a system. He certainly does not specify one.

But Godel's argument or 1+1=2 is useless unless it is transposed to reality.

"True" and "useful" are not synonymous.

Neither Gödel's argument nor 1+1=2 are useful or even meaningful.
They are provable and therefore, assuming soundness, true in every interpretation.

There is no need for a proposition to be useful or even meaningful, for it to be provable or true.

If you input "apples" into 1+1=2, you ultimately have to prove the output apples are real.

That does not affect the provability nor the truth of 1+1=2.

Thus whatever model you prove God exists, ultimately you have to prove [justify with evidences] that your God is real.

God is not a physical object that is part of this universe. That would be in violation of the definition in which God created this universe.

According to Kant, whatever method [Godel's or any] one proves God exists, it is impossible to prove such a God is real.
Where is the direct evidences for God for verification and justification God exists as real?

The God who created this universe, cannot be a physically observable object in this universe.

Note this non-Kantian counter to God Exists as Real:

The problem with this view is that the universe arose from pretty much nothing. If something triggered its appearance, it cannot physically be part of this universe. You reason within the universe. This kind of reasoning falls apart as soon as you consider the beginning or the end of this universe.

It amounts to demanding that Newton's mechanics would apply to very small or very large objects. It simply doesn't. We have to switch to something that can handle these extreme situations. Newton's mechanics cannot.

As explained above you simply cannot conflate mathematics with philosophical in the above case.

I do not accept Kant's nebulous word salad as a counterargument to Gödel's mathematically unobjectionable proof.
Philosophy is never accepted as a counterargument to mathematical proof.

Again there is no absolute to poll results, it merely show there is consensus and some substance to the results.
The results will only make sense to those who are very familiar with a wider perspective of philosophy.

That is a nebulous justification for Kant's nebulous word salad.

As I had stated, the CPR is not a book on mathematical theory.
The CPR is philosophical book and the mathematical elements therein are secondary.

Is that why it can float mathematically objectionable claims?
What Kant writes in Critique of Pure Reason, is plain wrong.

When you are in a Philosophy Forum you are obliged to comply with the rules of its language-game.

You are trying to use Kant's nebulous word salad as a counterargument to Gödel's mathematically unobjectionable proof. The rules of the game insist that a mere philosophical rant is never a valid counterargument to a mathematical theorem, because a mathematically unobjectionable proof is simply superior to a nebulous philosophical rant. If Gödel proves a claim, then Kant's nebulous nonsense cannot be used as a counterargument.

[Skepdick]

Because health and life are at stake, to be assured it is real milk, people will ask for "proofs" [certification from a scientific lab] to confirm what is sold is pure milk and not adulterated milk and not some kind of white powder or liquid.

Uhuh. And how would consumers ensure that the lab certification is not counterfeit?

[Atla]

Mathemathical axiom: "necessary existence is a positive property" P(NE)

This is the kind of axiom I can just keep staring at, and I don't even know how to come up with a framework in which I can start to address how much this does not compute

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because health and life are at stake, to be assured it is real milk, people will ask for "proofs" [certification from a scientific lab] to confirm what is sold is pure milk and not adulterated milk and not some kind of white powder or liquid.

Uhuh. And how would consumers ensure that the lab certification is not counterfeit?

It is a matter of principle, i.e. when the tests are according to scientific principles and methods are applied, the results will verify the scientific-realness of X.
There is no guarantee in this.
It is a matter of degrees of trust [based on past results] that the lab will apply the relevant scientific tests in compliance to the rules their professional accreditation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's counter is not directly disputing the mathematical part of Godel's mathematical proof which is only valid within Godel's mathematical system.

Kant did not explicitly limit his claim to a particular situation. In fact, if Kant's claim were valid, it would also apply only within the system that he had specified. The problem is that Kant does not even have a system. He certainly does not specify one.

But Godel's argument or 1+1=2 is useless unless it is transposed to reality.

"True" and "useful" are not synonymous.

Neither Gödel's argument nor 1+1=2 are useful or even meaningful.
They are provable and therefore, assuming soundness, true in every interpretation.

There is no need for a proposition to be useful or even meaningful, for it to be provable or true.

If you input "apples" into 1+1=2, you ultimately have to prove the output apples are real.

That does not affect the provability nor the truth of 1+1=2.

Thus whatever model you prove God exists, ultimately you have to prove [justify with evidences] that your God is real.

God is not a physical object that is part of this universe. That would be in violation of the definition in which God created this universe.

According to Kant, whatever method [Godel's or any] one proves God exists, it is impossible to prove such a God is real.
Where is the direct evidences for God for verification and justification God exists as real?

The God who created this universe, cannot be a physically observable object in this universe.

Note this non-Kantian counter to God Exists as Real:

The problem with this view is that the universe arose from pretty much nothing. If something triggered its appearance, it cannot physically be part of this universe. You reason within the universe. This kind of reasoning falls apart as soon as you consider the beginning or the end of this universe.

It amounts to demanding that Newton's mechanics would apply to very small or very large objects. It simply doesn't. We have to switch to something that can handle these extreme situations. Newton's mechanics cannot.

As explained above you simply cannot conflate mathematics with philosophical in the above case.

I do not accept Kant's nebulous word salad as a counterargument to Gödel's mathematically unobjectionable proof.
Philosophy is never accepted as a counterargument to mathematical proof.

Again there is no absolute to poll results, it merely show there is consensus and some substance to the results.
The results will only make sense to those who are very familiar with a wider perspective of philosophy.

That is a nebulous justification for Kant's nebulous word salad.

As I had stated, the CPR is not a book on mathematical theory.
The CPR is philosophical book and the mathematical elements therein are secondary.

Is that why it can float mathematically objectionable claims?
What Kant writes in Critique of Pure Reason, is plain wrong.

When you are in a Philosophy Forum you are obliged to comply with the rules of its language-game.

You are trying to use Kant's nebulous word salad as a counterargument to Gödel's mathematically unobjectionable proof. The rules of the game insist that a mere philosophical rant is never a valid counterargument to a mathematical theorem, because a mathematically unobjectionable proof is simply superior to a nebulous philosophical rant. If Gödel proves a claim, then Kant's nebulous nonsense cannot be used as a counterargument.

Happy Eid-ul-Fitr to you.
Eid Mubarak (عيد مبارك)

I don't want to go on with the above till the cows come home.

Here's from AI[wR];

[ME]My interlocutor claimed that mathematical proof, e.g. Godel's argument for God is absolute, i.e. nothing [not even philosophy] can critique it. I believe there is room for philosophical critical thinking to override the above claim.

You're absolutely right. Here's how you can counter your interlocutor's claim:

Gödel's argument isn't a mathematical proof of God: Gödel's argument is more akin to a philosophical one presented in a logical framework. It relies on specific axioms (unproven assumptions) about the nature of God and positive properties. Mathematical proofs deal with established mathematical objects and concepts, not metaphysical ones like God.

Critique of Axioms: A strength of philosophy is critiquing underlying assumptions. Gödel's argument hinges on his chosen axioms. Philosophers can debate the validity of these axioms, such as whether "positive properties" can be objectively defined in a way that applies to God.

Definition of God: The concept of God itself is debatable. Gödel's argument might lead to a being with certain properties, but that being might not align with what people traditionally think of as God.

Here's an analogy: Imagine a complex geometric proof within a specific set of axioms.
That proof might be irrefutable within that system, but it wouldn't hold true in a different geometry with different axioms.
Similarly, Gödel's argument works within his chosen framework, but that framework itself can be philosophically analyzed and debated.

In essence, philosophy provides the tools to critique the foundations on which Gödel's argument rests, even if the logic within the argument itself is sound.
Philosophy Can Critique the Underlying Assumptions

Philosophy excels at critiquing assumptions.
In Gödel's case, we can question:
The definition of a "positive property" used in his argument.
Whether such a perfect being is even logically possible.
The relevance of his definition to the concept of God in various religions.

The concept of God itself is a rich tapestry woven from philosophy, theology, and personal faith. It can't be easily captured in a purely logical framework.
Even within mathematics, proofs are judged based on their elegance, coherence with existing knowledge, and explanatory power.
Gödel's argument might not meet these criteria for everyone.

Kant's is using philosophy to critique all proofs of God. To topic [see OP] you have to understand [not agree with] Kant's CPR thoroughly to counter Kant philosophically.

Gödel's Argument Isn't Pure Math: Gödel's argument for God, though inspired by mathematics, isn't a mathematical proof in the strict sense. It delves into modal logic and the concept of "positive properties," which are philosophical concepts open to interpretation.

Challenging the Axioms: Mathematical proofs rely on axioms, foundational assumptions. In Gödel's case, these axioms about "positive properties" are debatable. Philosophy can critique these assumptions and their implications for the nature of God.

Limitations of Formal Systems: Gödel's incompleteness theorems themselves demonstrate the limitations of formal systems. These theorems show that even robust systems like mathematics have true statements unprovable within the system itself. This highlights that Gödel's argument, built on a specific logical framework, might not capture the full picture of God's existence.

God: A Philosophical Concept: The very concept of God is a philosophical one. Philosophy explores existence, essence, and the nature of reality. These are all valid areas for philosophical critique, even regarding a God established through a formal argument.

In essence, Gödel's argument offers an interesting thought experiment, but it's not an absolute proof within mathematics.
Philosophy provides the tools to analyze the underlying assumptions, the concept of God itself, and the limitations of the logical framework used.

[godelian]

[ME]My interlocutor claimed that mathematical proof, e.g. Godel's argument for God is absolute, i.e. nothing [not even philosophy] can critique it. I believe there is room for philosophical critical thinking to override the above claim.

You misrepresent my position on Gödel's proof. In the page for his proof, you will find the section "Criticism":

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

I already wrote in earlier comments that I agree with the criticism on the page. There is nothing wrong with what Sobel, Anderson, Koons, Gettings, Oppy, Spitzer, and Fuhrmann write about Gödel's proof. Their criticisms are in my opinion, legitimate and valid.

However, criticism on Gödel's proof based on what Kant writes in his Critique of Pure Reason is not valid. As you can see in the page, Kant is not even mentioned in the section criticism, if only, because it would be considered nonsensical.

Gödel's argument isn't a mathematical proof of God: Gödel's argument is more akin to a philosophical one presented in a logical framework. It relies on specific axioms (unproven assumptions) about the nature of God and positive properties. Mathematical proofs deal with established mathematical objects and concepts, not metaphysical ones like God.

Disagreed. By the way, this argument is not even mentioned in the "criticism" section in the page for the proof, almost surely, because it is not valid.

Critique of Axioms: A strength of philosophy is critiquing underlying assumptions. Gödel's argument hinges on his chosen axioms. Philosophers can debate the validity of these axioms, such as whether "positive properties" can be objectively defined in a way that applies to God.

Agreed. Gödel proves the existence of a God-like object from five basic beliefs. He does not prove these basic beliefs, however. In that sense, it constitutes an exercise in regress; which is something Aristotle warns for in "Posterior Analytics".

Definition of God: The concept of God itself is debatable. Gödel's argument might lead to a being with certain properties, but that being might not align with what people traditionally think of as God.

This criticism is quite weak. It is not even mentioned in the "criticism" section in the page for the proof.

Here's an analogy: Imagine a complex geometric proof within a specific set of axioms.
That proof might be irrefutable within that system, but it wouldn't hold true in a different geometry with different axioms.
Similarly, Gödel's argument works within his chosen framework, but that framework itself can be philosophically analyzed and debated.

The axioms are the framework of system-wide premises. So, it is again the same criticism as the criticism on the axioms. Therefore, this criticism is redundant.

In essence, philosophy provides the tools to critique the foundations on which Gödel's argument rests, even if the logic within the argument itself is sound.
Philosophy Can Critique the Underlying Assumptions
Philosophy excels at critiquing assumptions.

Well, criticism of the axioms first and foremost requires a sufficient understanding of expressions in modal logic. The truth is that most philosophers cannot read expressions in modal logic, understand their implications, and come up with legitimate criticism. That is why most criticism in the page is by other mathematicians. Example:

This line of thought was argued by Jordan Howard Sobel,[12] showing that if the axioms are accepted, they lead to a "modal collapse" where every statement that is true is necessarily true, i.e. the sets of necessary, of contingent, and of possible truths all coincide (provided there are accessible worlds at all).

Which philosopher without serious understanding of mathematics would be able to detect this problem of "modal collapse"?

Kant's is using philosophy to critique all proofs of God. To topic [see OP] you have to understand [not agree with] Kant's CPR thoroughly to counter Kant philosophically.

Kant's criticism of ontological proof did not predict that there could be issues with "modal collapse". Kant was not familiar with higher-order modal logic. His criticism is irrelevant in that context.

Challenging the Axioms: Mathematical proofs rely on axioms, foundational assumptions. In Gödel's case, these axioms about "positive properties" are debatable. Philosophy can critique these assumptions and their implications for the nature of God.

Not without understanding what these five axioms actually mean.

Limitations of Formal Systems: Gödel's incompleteness theorems themselves demonstrate the limitations of formal systems. These theorems show that even robust systems like mathematics have true statements unprovable within the system itself. This highlights that Gödel's argument, built on a specific logical framework, might not capture the full picture of God's existence.

You cannot use Gödel's incompleteness like this. First of all, it is provable in first-order arithmetic. Gödel's ontological proof is in higher-order modal logic. Secondly, the statement that he proves, is obviously not of the "true but not provable" kind.

God: A Philosophical Concept: The very concept of God is a philosophical one. Philosophy explores existence, essence, and the nature of reality. These are all valid areas for philosophical critique, even regarding a God established through a formal argument.

Philosophy cannot invalidate the proof. Look at the section "criticism" in the page on the proof. That is how to criticize the proof. Sobel, Anderson, Koons, Gettings, Oppy, Spitzer, and Fuhrmann do that perfectly fine. I agree with what they write. I will not agree, however, with the nebulous nonsense kind of counterargument.

In essence, Gödel's argument offers an interesting thought experiment, but it's not an absolute proof within mathematics.

Of course, it is an "absolute" proof within mathematics. It is a mathematically unobjectionable proof. Valid criticism written by Sobel, Anderson, Koons, Gettings, Oppy, Spitzer, and Fuhrmann, can be found in the page on the proof. Most philosophers cannot write valid criticism on the proof, simply because they do not understand higher-order modal logic.

Philosophy provides the tools to analyze the underlying assumptions, the concept of God itself, and the limitations of the logical framework used.

No, you must first and foremost thoroughly understand higher-order modal logic in order to gain the ability to criticize Gödel's proof. No understanding of higher-order modal logic means no ability to criticize. The basic principle is simple: you cannot criticize what you do not understand.

Kant could not do higher-order modal logic, not even to save himself from drowning.

You see, I respect Sobel, Anderson, Koons, Gettings, Oppy, Spitzer, and Fuhrmann's criticism, not only because it makes sense, but because they technically understand what they are talking about.

Concerning Kant, how can we take his criticism seriously, given the fact that he did not know what he was talking about?

[Veritas Aequitas]

However, criticism on Gödel's proof based on what Kant writes in his Critique of Pure Reason is not valid. As you can see in the page, Kant is not even mentioned in the section criticism, if only, because it would be considered nonsensical.

Philosophy provides the tools to analyze the underlying assumptions, the concept of God itself, and the limitations of the logical framework used.

No, you must first and foremost thoroughly understand higher-order modal logic in order to gain the ability to criticize Gödel's proof. No understanding of higher-order modal logic means no ability to criticize. The basic principle is simple: you cannot criticize what you do not understand.

Kant could not do higher-order modal logic, not even to save himself from drowning.

You see, I respect Sobel, Anderson, Koons, Gettings, Oppy, Spitzer, and Fuhrmann's criticism, not only because it makes sense, but because they technically understand what they are talking about.

Concerning Kant, how can we take his criticism seriously, given the fact that he did not know what he was talking about?

Note the OP is;
Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

Thus the point that you cannot critique Kant's arguments with Godel's unless you have understood Kant's CPR thoroughly.
I know that is not an easy task for you but it is a very fair call.

That Kant's argument against 'God is real' was not included in the "Criticism of Godel's .." in the WIKI article is because it is not directly relevant.

I pointed out,
as above, Godel's argument is not a purely mathematical argument but a philosophical argument i.e. an ontological argument which is refuted by Kant as claimed in the OP.

[godelian]

Thus the point that you cannot critique Kant's arguments with Godel's unless you have understood Kant's CPR thoroughly.

The core of Kant's argument, i.e. the undefinability of existence, is unsubstantiated. You see, the undefinability of the truth, on the other hand, is perfectly provable. Tarski's proof is mathematically unobjectionable. Kant, on the other hand, does not even have a proof. He merely produces a long-winding nebulous rant that proves nothing at all.

That Kant's argument against 'God is real' was not included in the "Criticism of Godel's .." in the WIKI article is because it is not directly relevant.

Exactly. Kant's argument is irrelevant in the context of Gödel's proof.
This does not mean that legitimate criticism of Gödel's proof would not exist. It certainly does. I even join the critics of Gödel's proof, because it constitutes regress in exactly the sense that Aristotle warned for in Posterior Analytics. There is rather limited value in replacing the basic belief in God by the basic belief in five subtle expressions in higher-order modal logic.

I pointed out,
as above, Godel's argument is not a purely mathematical argument but a philosophical argument i.e. an ontological argument which is refuted by Kant as claimed in the OP.

Kant's undefinability of existence is based on mere nebulous nonsense. I reject it for being completely unsubstantiated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the existential quantifier in logic. Kant's undefinability of existence is not a legitimate counterargument to Gödel's proof in higher-order modal logic. Gödel does not even use an existence predicate. He uses the standard existential quantifier in his proof.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus the point that you cannot critique Kant's arguments with Godel's unless you have understood Kant's CPR thoroughly.

The core of Kant's argument, i.e. the undefinability of existence, is unsubstantiated. You see, the undefinability of the truth, on the other hand, is perfectly provable. Tarski's proof is mathematically unobjectionable. Kant, on the other hand, does not even have a proof. He merely produces a long-winding nebulous rant that proves nothing at all.

As I had stated, you are not qualified to critique Kant until you have thoroughly understood [not agree with] Kant's CPR.

That Kant's argument against 'God is real' was not included in the "Criticism of Godel's .." in the WIKI article is because it is not directly relevant.

Exactly. Kant's argument is irrelevant in the context of Gödel's proof.
This does not mean that legitimate criticism of Gödel's proof would not exist. It certainly does. I even join the critics of Gödel's proof, because it constitutes regress in exactly the sense that Aristotle warned for in Posterior Analytics. There is rather limited value in replacing the basic belief in God by the basic belief in five subtle expressions in higher-order modal logic.

It was not directly relevant because, the focus on that article was not mathematics and not on the Godel's as an ontological argument.

I pointed out,
as above, Godel's argument is not a purely mathematical argument but a philosophical argument i.e. an ontological argument which is refuted by Kant as claimed in the OP.

Kant's undefinability of existence is based on mere nebulous nonsense. I reject it for being completely unsubstantiated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the existential quantifier in logic. Kant's undefinability of existence is not a legitimate counterargument to Gödel's proof in higher-order modal logic. Gödel does not even use an existence predicate. He uses the standard existential quantifier in his proof.

Here is Godel's as an Ontological Proof;

Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument by the mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) for the existence of God. The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716); this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

And here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologic ... G%C3%B6del

Godel's Ontological Argument fall as a subset of the Ontological main set. As such the relevant criticism for the ontological arguments are herewith;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologic ... objections
Criticisms and objections subsection
Gaunilo
Thomas Aquinas
David Hume
Immanuel Kant
Douglas Gasking
William L. Rowe
Coherence of a maximally great being
Bertrand Russell

It is not only Kant, but you have to counter the above philosophers as well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus whatever model you prove God exists, ultimately you have to prove [justify with evidences] that your God is real.

God is not a physical object that is part of this universe. That would be in violation of the definition in which God created this universe.

According to Kant, whatever method [Godel's or any] one proves God exists, it is impossible to prove such a God is real.
Where is the direct evidences for God for verification and justification God exists as real?

The God who created this universe, cannot be a physically observable object in this universe.

This is the excuses many schizophrenics* had claimed for the existence of their God and other entities when they are unable to justify the existence of their God as real.

The scientific Framework and System [scientific antirealism] is the gold standard of justifying what is scientifically real; there are no others better FS.

* and others like those who belief God exists based on;
-mental illness - various
-brain damage
-drugs
-hallucinogens
-traumatic stress
-meditation
-magnetic waves -e.g. God's helmet
-etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this non-Kantian counter to God Exists as Real:
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Your above response is off target.

The argument therein is;

• P1. For all* theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real,
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.

* re Christianity and Islam which has to claim a God than which no greater can be conceived, so that their God do not exists as inferior to another God, thus has to be absolutely perfect.
Absolute perfection is impossible in reality.

Can you produce evidence to verify and justify the existence of a perfect circle? or any geometric figure?

If you want to respond, do so in the above link;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[godelian]

As I had stated, you are not qualified to critique Kant until you have thoroughly understood [not agree with] Kant's CPR.

The concept of "proof" is the exclusive preserve of mathematics/logic. It is not me who needs to learn to understand Kant's nebulous nonsense. It is Kant who would have had to learn mathematics/logic, which he clearly didn't.

Kant in Critique of Pure Reason:

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

Through his own admission, it is Kant who is not qualified to criticize a mathematical proof. His arguments are simply not receivable in the context of mathematics.

Godel's Ontological Argument fall as a subset of the Ontological main set. As such the relevant criticism for the ontological arguments are herewith;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologic ... objections
Criticisms and objections subsection
Gaunilo
Thomas Aquinas
David Hume
Immanuel Kant
Douglas Gasking
William L. Rowe
Coherence of a maximally great being
Bertrand Russell

It is not only Kant, but you have to counter the above philosophers as well.

None of the people that you mention -- with possibly Bertrand Russell being the only exception -- understood higher-order modal logic, not even to save themselves from drowning. They cannot criticize Gödel's proof because one cannot criticize what one does not understand.

We do not accept a long-winding nebulous rant of nonsense as a counterargument to a mathematically unobjectionable proof.

It is otherwise very simple. Whenever there is mathematical proof, non-mathematicians cannot argue against it by using word salads. This has never been accepted and will never be accepted.

Again, I have already mentioned that there are people who correctly criticize Gödel's proof. I actually support their views. I would, however, never support an argument produced by Kant. He is not qualified to criticize Gödel's work. There is simply a difference in class and ability between them. Kant is the king of ineptitude. I cannot respect his bullshit.