Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

[godelian]

Mathematics is merely tool which has its limitations:
The foundational crisis of mathematics
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundatio ... nal_crisis

Every tool has its limitations. The limitations of mathematics are actually my favorite sub-field. It is an exhilarating exercise in disaster tourism. It is like booking a tour of Chernobyl reactor number four. It is incredible fun!

Besides there is nothing practically positive with mathematics until it is applied as a tool by some [not all] fields of knowledge.

Yes, but that is where computer science kicks in. It still does not require expensive test equipment. I am not against science. It is just that I do not want to buy test equipment.

Kant never claimed to be a mathematician at all.
So how can one expect Kantian to be a notable figure in the field of mathematics.

Kant still said a few things in mathematics that committed him to a position that turned out to be glaringly wrong. Just off the top of my hat:

1. Geometry requires visual, sensory input. Wrong. He ignored Descartes' incipient work, with his coordinate system, in which he created the beginnings of the full algebraization of geometry. Geometry can be done through symbol manipulation only.
2. The natural number system is not axiomatic. Wrong. Peano and Dedekind completely axiomatized arithmetic theory.
3. Existence is undefinable as a predicate. Wrong. We use the first-order logic's existential quantifier all the time.

Kant is a philosopher and recognized as one of the greatest philosopher of all times. That you condemned Kant without basis merely insults your own intelligence.

In critique of pure reason, Kant wrote quite a few glaring errors on the ontology and epistemology of mathematics. Most of what he writes, however, does not commit him to anything. It is just not actionable. Therefore, it is not even worth debating. If we contrast that to Aristotle, he did firmly commit to actionable claims, and what he wrote, turned out to be surprisingly correct. That is why Aristotle's work is worthy of respect. Kant's work? Not so much.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Mathematics is merely tool which has its limitations:
The foundational crisis of mathematics
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundatio ... nal_crisis

Every tool has its limitations. The limitations of mathematics are actually my favorite sub-field. It is an exhilarating exercise in disaster tourism. It is like booking a tour of Chernobyl reactor number four. It is incredible fun!

Besides there is nothing practically positive with mathematics until it is applied as a tool by some [not all] fields of knowledge.

Yes, but that is where computer science kicks in. It still does not require expensive test equipment. I am not against science. It is just that I do not want to buy test equipment.

Kant never claimed to be a mathematician at all.
So how can one expect Kantian to be a notable figure in the field of mathematics.

Kant still said a few things in mathematics that committed him to a position that turned out to be glaringly wrong. Just off the top of my hat:

1. Geometry requires visual, sensory input. Wrong. He ignored Descartes' incipient work, with his coordinate system, in which he created the beginnings of the full algebraization of geometry. Geometry can be done through symbol manipulation only.
2. The natural number system is not axiomatic. Wrong. Peano and Dedekind completely axiomatized arithmetic theory.
3. Existence is undefinable as a predicate. Wrong. We use the first-order logic's existential quantifier all the time.

Kant is a philosopher and recognized as one of the greatest philosopher of all times. That you condemned Kant without basis merely insults your own intelligence.

In critique of pure reason, Kant wrote quite a few glaring errors on the ontology and epistemology of mathematics. Most of what he writes, however, does not commit him to anything. It is just not actionable. Therefore, it is not even worth debating. If we contrast that to Aristotle, he did firmly commit to actionable claims, and what he wrote, turned out to be surprisingly correct. That is why Aristotle's work is worthy of respect. Kant's work? Not so much.

Kant is not a mathematician per se.

The points you made above are related to the philosophy of mathematics not mathematics per se.

I agree with Kant from a philosophical basis on point 1 and 3 above, not sure with 2.
The points are contentious and you cannot simply brush them off without understanding [not agree with] Kant argument.

Re point 1, it is evident we see geometric patterns [triangles, squares, polygons] everywhere in nature.
We are using geometry to formalize those patterns which are consistent to facilitate communications and its uses.
Thus Kant's claim that geometry is grounded on the senses, intuition and the empirical is true.

Kant argued Mathematics is synthetic and not analytic.
Humans first observed units in nature and significantly one's fingers and toes, one head, one dick, two legs etc.

[godelian]

Thus Kant's claim that geometry is grounded on the senses, intuition and the empirical is true.

It does not fundamentally need to be. It can be done by solving the zeros in multivariate polynomials:

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

Algebraic geometry is a branch of mathematics which uses abstract algebraic techniques, mainly from commutative algebra, to solve geometrical problems. Classically, it studies zeros of multivariate polynomials; the modern approach generalizes this in a few different aspects.

There is nothing visually-sensory about a polynomial. It is just a symbol stream.

Humans first observed units in nature and significantly one's fingers and toes, one head, one dick, two legs etc.

Yes, but computers can do all of that too. Computers are not humans. That is why I reject psychologism as a legitimate ontology for mathematics. Furthermore, animals also have basic mathematical abilities embedded in their biological firmware.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus Kant's claim that geometry is grounded on the senses, intuition and the empirical is true.

It does not fundamentally need to be. It can be done by solving the zeros in multivariate polynomials:

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

Algebraic geometry is a branch of mathematics which uses abstract algebraic techniques, mainly from commutative algebra, to solve geometrical problems. Classically, it studies zeros of multivariate polynomials; the modern approach generalizes this in a few different aspects.

There is nothing visually-sensory about a polynomial. It is just a symbol stream.

Humans first observed units in nature and significantly one's fingers and toes, one head, one dick, two legs etc.

Yes, but computers can do all of that too. Computers are not humans. That is why I reject psychologism as a legitimate ontology for mathematics. Furthermore, animals also have basic mathematical abilities embedded in their biological firmware.

The point is the fundamental of mathematics and geometry are grounded on human senses originally.
It is the same with animals.
Without the human system there would be no human related mathematics or animals related numbering.

It is from this human grounded number and geometric shapes that other shapes are generated.

Even logic is grounded biologically:
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

If there are no living things what exists is probably this:


It is likely it is not even the above.
Nothing can be said beyond that.

[Sculptor]

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 "basic" 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:

You are a total clueless wonder.
A prime example of someone who knows how to copy and paste, but sadly think this is the same thing as understanding.
Did you have any schooling at all?

I asked you about "Basic" beliefs. What you think you meant when you say that a belief in god (or whatever) is truly basic.
All you respond with is a list in irrelevant gobbets from Wiki which have nothing whatever to so with this issue.


Thanks for confirming what I thought about you.

[godelian]

I aksed YOU what is meant by "basic" 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:

You are a total clueless wonder.
A prime example of someone who knows how to copy and paste, but sadly think this is the same thing as understanding.
Did you have any schooling at all?

I asked you about "Basic" beliefs. What you think you meant when you say that a belief in god (or whatever) is truly basic.
All you respond with is a list in irrelevant gobbets from Wiki which have nothing whatever to so with this issue.


Thanks for confirming what I thought about you.

Well, in that case, ask someone else about recursive algorithms and how they relate to Aristotle's approach to the matter. Furthermore, it is not my fault that you do not understand Aristotle's original writings.

[Sculptor]

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:

You are a total clueless wonder.
A prime example of someone who knows how to copy and paste, but sadly think this is the same thing as understanding.
Did you have any schooling at all?

I asked you about "Basic" beliefs. What you think you meant when you say that a belief in god (or whatever) is truly basic.
All you respond with is a list in irrelevant gobbets from Wiki which have nothing whatever to so with this issue.


Thanks for confirming what I thought about you.

Well, in that case, ask someone else about recursive algorithms and how they relate to Aristotle's approach to the matter. Furthermore, it is not my fault that you do not understand Aristotle's original writings.

I'm pretty sure you have never opened a book of Aristotle.
lol
Please cite!

[Sculptor]

No basic belief is valid.

All basic beliefs are axiomatic and mere assertions upon which other things are built.

No matter how strong and valid they appear, they are definitively baseless and reliant of an arbitrary scheme.

As such interpretations and logical claims resulting from basic beliefs are nothing more than a house of cards.

And so this thread is pretty much verbal dioreah.

[godelian]

I'm pretty sure you have never opened a book of Aristotle.
lol
Please cite!

I literally quoted as examples of recursive processes the following two passages from Aristotle:

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.

Go two posts back. I quoted them there already.

Aristotle describes a recursive process, declares that it cannot infinitely go on, and therefore discovers that there must be a base case. It is the earliest example in history of recursive programming.

[Sculptor]

I'm pretty sure you have never opened a book of Aristotle.
lol
Please cite!

I literally quoted as examples of recursive processes the following two passages from Aristotle:

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.

Go two posts back. I quoted them there already.

Aristotle describes a recursive process, declares that it cannot infinitely go on, and therefore discovers that there must be a base case. It is the earliest example in history of recursive programming.

THis is not about Basic Belief FFS

[godelian]

THis is not about Basic Belief FFS

In both cases, Aristotle concludes that there must be a base case, i.e. a basic belief.

In the first case, in Physics, Aristotle recurses causality and arrives at the necessity for a first cause.
In the second case, in Posterior Analytics, Aristotle recurses over justification for a belief and arrives at the necessity for a first unjustified belief.

Aristotle rejects the possibility of an infinite loop. Therefore, there must be a terminating case for the loop.

So, for example, if f(n) = n + f(n-1), then f(n-1) = n + f(n-2), and so on. However, at some point it must stop. So, for example, f(0) = 0. This is the terminating or base case.

It is absolutely about basic beliefs. This is exactly how Aristotle came to develop foundationalism: the inevitable necessity of basic beliefs in a logical system.

[Sculptor]

THis is not about Basic Belief FFS

In both cases, Aristotle concludes that there must be a base case, i.e. a basic belief.

In the first case, in Physics, Aristotle recurses causality and arrives at the necessity for a first cause.
In the second case, in Posterior Analytics, Aristotle recurses over justification for a belief and arrives at the necessity for a first unjustified belief.

Aristotle rejects the possibility of an infinite loop. Therefore, there must be a terminating case for the loop.

So, for example, if f(n) = n + f(n-1), then f(n-1) = n + f(n-2), and so on. However, at some point it must stop. So, for example, f(0) = 0. This is the terminating or base case.

It is absolutely about basic beliefs. This is exactly how Aristotle came to develop foundationalism: the inevitable necessity of basic beliefs in a logical system.

FFS. The whole point about a basic belief is that it is not derivable. That's why its called basic

[Skepdick]

In the CPR of Kant under Transcendental Dialectic: Ideal, Kant argued it is impossible to prove God exists as real. [NK Smith's

Kant sounds confused.

"Real" is everything which is within reality. If God exists, God's the creator of reality.

Therefore not within reality.

If you were to prove the cause of reality to be within reality you get yourself a big circle.

[godelian]

THis is not about Basic Belief FFS

In both cases, Aristotle concludes that there must be a base case, i.e. a basic belief.

In the first case, in Physics, Aristotle recurses causality and arrives at the necessity for a first cause.
In the second case, in Posterior Analytics, Aristotle recurses over justification for a belief and arrives at the necessity for a first unjustified belief.

Aristotle rejects the possibility of an infinite loop. Therefore, there must be a terminating case for the loop.

So, for example, if f(n) = n + f(n-1), then f(n-1) = n + f(n-2), and so on. However, at some point it must stop. So, for example, f(0) = 0. This is the terminating or base case.

It is absolutely about basic beliefs. This is exactly how Aristotle came to develop foundationalism: the inevitable necessity of basic beliefs in a logical system.

FFS. The whole point about a basic belief is that it is not derivable. That's why its called basic

Look carefully at how Aristotle derives that these basic beliefs must exist:

(1) You take an algorithm and observe that it recurses.
(2) You observe that the algorithm does not run forever. It does not contain an infinite loop. It does terminate.
(3) Therefore, the algorithm must have a terminating clause, i.e. a base case.

Did you read how Aristotle used this reasoning in Physics and Posterior Analytics? I quoted the exact fragments.

[seeds]

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?

Here ya go: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nick_Herb ... 20universe

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}];

How about we call this new obsession of yours the...

"Veritas Aequitas Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition/Knowledge of how to Employ Annoying Acronyms"

Which, of course, for making it easier for one to use in the numerous philosophical conversations where your new obsession will no doubt be constantly referenced by other esteemed philosophers, there would be this...

...the "VAFSRRCKEAA"

(As a new philosophy lexicon entry, phonetically, it could be pronounced like this: the "VAFSERKIA")

Waddya think? Catchy, right?

...of which the scientific FSRC [correction: the "VAFSRRCKEAA"] is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.

Are you daft? I referenced the implications of the "scientifically derived" findings of quantum mechanics. How much more golden, and credible, and objective can the explorations into the nature of "reality" get?

"...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?

What is truly ridiculous is a wannabe philosopher who is terrified of exploring hypothetical questions.

Why?

Because if seen as reasonable, they might cast doubt on his highly ingrained belief system and, in turn, trigger an existential crisis, accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

How can you know God does not want to be proven to be 'real' [FSRC-ed] [correction: VAFSRRCKEAA-ed] when you have not proven God to be real [FSRC-ed]? [correction: VAFSRRCKEAA-ed]
It is so messy and thus a non-starter.

I gave you a perfectly plausible reason for why God might not want to be proven to be real.

Unfortunately, you are so cocooned and encapsulated within the opaque ideological bubble you've created out of the blatherings of old philosophers such as Kant, that you are incapable of entertaining the possible solutions to the perennial (unsolved) mysteries of reality.

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

Repeating the same strangely worded and illogical assertion over and over again, doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

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.

The dense outer film of your ideological bubble will of course repel the following,...

...however, the fact of the matter is that theists would love to prove, or, more accurately, love to have the "realness" of God proven to them and the rest of humanity, but like I suggested earlier, the operative integrity of the illusion of objective reality, along with the very reason for why the universe was created in the first place,...

...may very well hinge on the necessity of God remaining hidden from most of humanity (at least until death).
_______