|
|
|
Re:Kant's objection to the cosmological argument. 2 Years ago
|
Karma: 4
|
|
Just to make clear to a casual reader, the being of God is not in question by any of the critics of any of the arguments. This is assumed to be true.
What is under discussion are logical proofs by which we could know with certainty that God exists.
The problems are in the use of words such as exist and know, and in the logical validity of certain arguments. Can a transcendental Being be said to exist in the limiting sense of "exist"? Is knowledge, or is there any logic that is applicable to anything other than the phenomenal world? Can God be part of the phenomenal world or must He not necessarily be greater?
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Kant's objection to the cosmological argument. 2 Years ago
|
Karma: 4
|
|
The Newtonian Universe is a fully deterministic model (approximation) of a greater observable universe. Deterministic means wholly causal, with conserved unobservable quantities (momentum, energy) being passed by events from before to after. The model can be eternal, cyclical, or have a beginning and/or end.
A Newtonian Universe with a beginning requires causality, and a necessary original Cause. Newton thought so.
There are scientific versions of deterministic original cause also, that do not specify God as the original cause of the universe, but a quantum fluctuation out of Nothing (I've got some of that,) or perhaps a pre-existing parent universe (This just passes the problem along to some "other" unknowable universe).
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/05/05 18:35 By YadaYada.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Kant's objection to the cosmological argument. 2 Years ago
|
Karma: -1
|
|
to begin to exist is not necessitated, this 1st premise is that allows for these kind of misconceptions.
The only way is to provide us with reality which itself was disputed by the idealisic frame of thinking !!.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/05/11 11:42 By alderdear.
Reason: human logic
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Kant's objection to the cosmological argument. 2 Years ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Szavieur wrote:
When Kant says that the cosmological argument (CA) depends on the ontological argument (OA) to prove a divine reality, he means that the CA only proves that something is necessary, which transcendental theologians go on to claim (by way, surreptitiously, of the OA) to be something divine. But by itself, the CA doesn't tell us what, exactly, the attributes of a necessary existence are (save that it's not contingent), and so doesn't establish divinity.
I've since turned in the paper.
I agree; however, Kant holds the position that his refutation of the ontological argument refutes the cosmological argument; however, his refutation of the ontological argument simply argues that the existence of something cannot be deduced from the concept. Step 2 of the cosmological argument (the proof that the necessary being is subsistent being) does not assert that anything exists, just that the concept of subsistent being contains the concept of necessary existence. The judgment as to whether or not a necessary being exists is made based off Step 1 of the cosmological argument from which it is deduced that any necessary being must be God. In this case, actual existence does not follow from the concept of subsistent being, only necessary existence.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/05/14 17:31 By cmbodayle.
|
|
|
"All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking." -Friedrich Nietzsche.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Kant's objection to the cosmological argument. 2 Years ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
YadaYada wrote:
What is under discussion are logical proofs by which we could know with certainty that God exists.
What was under discussion was Kant's objection to a particular argument...
"Can a transcendental Being be said to exist in the limiting sense of "exist"? "
What do you mean by the "limiting sense" of exist?
"Is knowledge, or is there any logic that is applicable to anything other than the phenomenal world?"
To do this, you have to presuppose the phenomenal/noumenal distinction. An Aristotelian or Thomistic model doesn't have this problem, e.g. in Aristotelian theology, the mind becomes God in contemplation.
"Can God be part of the phenomenal world or must He not necessarily be greater?"
Is God an appearance? Certainly not.
From a Kantian model, he cannot enter the manifold of representations because His concept does not conform to Sensibility (Space and Time).
From an Aristotelian or Thomistic model, He is a "super-sensible" entity that is necessary based off the a posteriori evidence of existent things.
From a phenomenological standpoint, He is outside of the sphere of eminence except perhaps in a mystical experience.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/05/14 17:43 By cmbodayle.
|
|
|
"All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking." -Friedrich Nietzsche.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
