[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 31978B2E-BB37-4DE3-96F8-82B634389F92.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19540701 No.19540701 [Reply] [Original]

Against ontological and cosmological arguments for God, Kant says that absolute necessity cannot be posited to the extent of complete certainty outside of experience from pure concepts alone. Is this true? He says that the cosmological argument bases its principles on the idea that the most necessary being is the most real, which is outside our experience. This is because, according to him, We do not know what properties make up the condition of an absolutely necessary being to the extent that it’s existence is self-justifying.

>> No.19540718

>use your eyes lmao
yeah he’s right but theists will never accept it

>> No.19540881

>>19540701
Why was Kant against those arguments in the first place, wasn't he a Christian?. Is for that "Sola Fide" shit?.

>> No.19540918

>>19540881
it goes without saying that he was not an evidentialist when it came to religion and he suspected early on that knowledge of God could never rise to the level of analytic judgement.

>> No.19540921

God is a matter of practical reason for kant I think

>> No.19540928

>>19540881
he made those arguments because he genuinely didnt think they were good enough and funnily enough he thought this was going to get him silenced or worse by an angry mob of scholastics but his arguments were so good they had to bend the knee and theology has been reeling ever since from the "death-blow" kant gave it, as said by schopenhauer.

>> No.19540932

>>19540928
>angry mob of scholastics
>in Kant's era
atheist persecution complex and delusion as usual

>> No.19540953

>>19540932
i believe in God and the validity of organized religion

>> No.19540977

>>19540953
Ok, what you said about backlash is still incorrect

>> No.19540994
File: 143 KB, 500x709, Christian_Wolff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19540994

>>19540932
Neoscholasticism was actually a thing in Kant's times. Kant was "one of them" before his critical period

>> No.19541014

>>19540977
Dubs of retardation. Checked

>> No.19541023

>>19541014
>>19540994
fine I admit I was wrong SORRY

>> No.19541143
File: 160 KB, 657x527, 920F1B5E-5ABD-43DF-84AE-F6B9E6DB9441.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19541143

>>19541023
Yeah I don’t know whether u were right or wrong I just didn’t like your tone

>> No.19542322

bump. I ask again whether or not what kant is saying is true. he says that an absolutely necessary being is incoherent not because he's an atheist but because absolute necessity is not a condition we are familiar with by any means. this is why he says that the argument fails because the conclusion is only accepted when there are no further determinations for reason to access, and that absolute necessity constitutes absolute reality to the extent that if this argument were true, saying God doesn't exist would be a contradiction, but the argument doesnt actually make the position of God's non-existence a contradictory belief so it fails completely. this is because its principles are possible concepts i think, and they do not leave possibility to the realm of analytic judgement fuck my head hurts