Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

It is something like [not precisely] the below;

An apple out there is real, i.e. we can use the science-biology framework and system [FS] to prove that apple exists as real. The science FS is the gold standard of what is reality.

It is impossible to prove God [an entity which omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent] exists as real within the science FS [gold standard of reality] because it is impossible for such an entity to even exists from the starting point of science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

One origin of the conception of God arise from the following;
1. Insanity, various mental illnesses
2. Hallucination
3. Hallucinogens
4. Brain Damage
5. Various drugs
6. Traumatic Stress
7. Old age
8. driven by an existential crisis
9. etc.

I have provided supporting references for the above somewhere.

You NEVER consider the above possibility at all but you should.

[seeds]

One origin of the conception of God arise from the following;
1. Insanity, various mental illnesses
2. Hallucination
3. Hallucinogens
4. Brain Damage
5. Various drugs
6. Traumatic Stress
7. Old age
8. driven by an existential crisis
9. etc.

I have provided supporting references for the above somewhere.

You NEVER consider the above possibility at all but you should.

Sure, those are all plausible possibilities for why there is such a wide variety of dubious visions of God.

However (and no matter what you assume to the contrary), none of those possibilities had anything to do with my direct (Burning Bush-like) encounter with God, of which I meticulously described in this thread...

viewtopic.php?t=41452

Furthermore, allow me to add numbers 10 and 11 to your list...

• One origin of the conception of God arise from the following;
  1. Insanity, various mental illnesses
  2. Hallucination
  3. Hallucinogens
  4. Brain Damage
  5. Various drugs
  6. Traumatic Stress
  7. Old age
  8. driven by an existential crisis
  9. etc.
  ----
  10. Some humans are more psychically sensitive to the fact that, like a fetus within its mother's womb, we are immersed within the living fabric of God's being. And because we cannot yet see or comprehend the ontological status of this Being,...
  
  (as seen from the outside of this grand "cosmic womb")
  
  ...we conjure up speculative visions of what its possible form and intentions might be.
  
  11. Actual (but limited) divine inspiration.
  ----
  12. etc.

Again, you are terrified of considering such hypothetical scenarios, because, if true, it would completely destroy the narrative you've been developing and promoting for so many years.

And what exactly is this narrative you are so fond of and encourage others to adopt in order to feel better about life?

It is a narrative (a philosophy) based on pure existential nihilism in which humans have absolutely no real reason or purpose for existing other than spending a few fleeting moments in this madhouse we call life on earth. All of which is taking place in a context of reality that somehow "accidentally formed itself" out of a blind and mindless substance that seems to have emerged out of nowhere.

I mean, who, in their right mind, wouldn't want to take their feeling of hope that life holds a greater purpose for us and trade that for the utter meaninglessness of reality implicit in your philosophy?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

One origin of the conception of God arise from the following;
1. Insanity, various mental illnesses
2. Hallucination
3. Hallucinogens
4. Brain Damage
5. Various drugs
6. Traumatic Stress
7. Old age
8. driven by an existential crisis
9. etc.

I have provided supporting references for the above somewhere.

You NEVER consider the above possibility at all but you should.

Sure, those are all plausible possibilities for why there is such a wide variety of dubious visions of God.

However (and no matter what you assume to the contrary), none of those possibilities had anything to do with my direct (Burning Bush-like) encounter with God, of which I meticulously described in this thread...

viewtopic.php?t=41452

Furthermore, allow me to add numbers 10 and 11 to your list...

• One origin of the conception of God arise from the following;
  1. Insanity, various mental illnesses
  2. Hallucination
  3. Hallucinogens
  4. Brain Damage
  5. Various drugs
  6. Traumatic Stress
  7. Old age
  8. driven by an existential crisis
  9. etc.
  ----
  10. Some humans are more psychically sensitive to the fact that, like a fetus within its mother's womb, we are immersed within the living fabric of God's being. And because we cannot yet see or comprehend the ontological status of this Being,...
  
  (as seen from the outside of this grand "cosmic womb")
  
  ...we conjure up speculative visions of what its possible form and intentions might be.
  
  11. Actual (but limited) divine inspiration.
  ----
  12. etc.

Again, you are terrified of considering such hypothetical scenarios, because, if true, it would completely destroy the narrative you've been developing and promoting for so many years.

And what exactly is this narrative you are so fond of and encourage others to adopt in order to feel better about life?

It is a narrative (a philosophy) based on pure existential nihilism in which humans have absolutely no real reason or purpose for existing other than spending a few fleeting moments in this madhouse we call life on earth. All of which is taking place in a context of reality that somehow "accidentally formed itself" out of a blind and mindless substance that seems to have emerged out of nowhere.
_______

Your point 10 & 11 has its origin in any of the elements in 1-9 & 12.

I mean, who, in their right mind, wouldn't want to take their feeling of hope that life holds a greater purpose for us and trade that for the utter meaninglessness of reality implicit in your philosophy?

Note the following;

1. Kant's vision and mission cover the totality of the following;

• 1. What can we Know - epistemology of all there is
  2. What can we do - morality - act optimally
  3. What can we hope for - perpetual peace [of well-being] from 1 & 2
  4. If 3 not sufficient, interactive 1->3.

The above do not ignore the belief in an illusory God as real [impossible], but only as a useful illusion for therapeutic purposes within 1 to 3 and is relative to specific conditions and time [present not future].

2. Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
that enhances the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:
"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines". -Dp 188
Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

3. Other secular self & group development Programs.

Are you aware of the theistic related therapeutic purposes for yourself to soothe the existential crisis that is inherent in ALL humans but modulated and managed effectively in some [non-theists]?

[Skepdick]

It is something like [not precisely] the below;

An apple out there is real, i.e. we can use the science-biology framework and system [FS] to prove that apple exists as real. The science FS is the gold standard of what is reality.

I have no idea what that means. Which property of the apple is its "realness" ?

It is impossible to prove God [an entity which omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent] exists as real within the science FS [gold standard of reality] because it is impossible for such an entity to even exists from the starting point of science.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is that science does.

Proving things isn't in the job description.

[seeds]

Furthermore, allow me to add numbers 10 and 11 to your list...

• One origin of the conception of God arise from the following;
  1. Insanity, various mental illnesses
  2. Hallucination
  3. Hallucinogens
  4. Brain Damage
  5. Various drugs
  6. Traumatic Stress
  7. Old age
  8. driven by an existential crisis
  9. etc.
  ----
  10. Some humans are more psychically sensitive to the fact that, like a fetus within its mother's womb, we are immersed within the living fabric of God's being. And because we cannot yet see or comprehend the ontological status of this Being,...
  
  (as seen from the outside of this grand "cosmic womb")
  
  ...we conjure up speculative visions of what its possible form and intentions might be.
  
  11. Actual (but limited) divine inspiration.
  ----
  12. etc.

Your point 10 & 11 has its origin in any of the elements in 1-9 & 12.

Nonsense!

Again, all you are doing is demonstrating your fear of entertaining hypothetical scenarios that, if found to be plausible, would destroy the nihilistic (meaningless/purposeless) vision of reality you are so deeply and emotionally invested in.

Note the following;

1. Kant's vision and mission cover the totality of the following;

• 1. What can we Know - epistemology of all there is
  2. What can we do - morality - act optimally
  3. What can we hope for - perpetual peace [of well-being] from 1 & 2
  4. If 3 not sufficient, interactive 1->3.

The above do not ignore the belief in an illusory God as real [impossible], but only as a useful illusion for therapeutic purposes within 1 to 3 and is relative to specific conditions and time [present not future].

I hate to do this,...

(who am I kidding, I love to do this)

...but in your constant reference to Kant (PBUH), you've forced me to resort to my feeble (and juvenile) attempts at humor and resurrect a slightly modified post from a few years back...

It's probably just me and my silly attitude about things, but I cannot help but believe that it's wiser to stand on the shoulders of past giants in order to see what lies above and beyond them, as opposed to playing the role of an adoring little nephew who prefers to stay in a perpetual piggy-back ride with his hero, "Uncle Kant"...

Uncle Kant says: "Little V, you just ignore that mean old Mr. seeds and only listen to me."

Little V: "Okay Uncle K, you're my bestest hero, cuz you know everything. Umm,....I think I poo'ed my pants."

Uncle Kant: "Aww, that's okay little V,...so did I,....so did I."

Come on you little rascal - snap out of it - and crawl up onto Uncle Kant's shoulders and make an effort to see above and beyond this fallible human.

You need to stop inhaling Uncle Kant's B.O., for it seems to have had some sort of mesmerizing (imprinting) effect on you and has severely impaired your ability to think and reason on your own.

2. Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
that enhances the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.

3. Other secular self & group development Programs.

Are you aware of the theistic related therapeutic purposes for yourself to soothe the existential crisis that is inherent in ALL humans but modulated and managed effectively in some [non-theists]?

How many different ways are you going to prove to me that your core philosophy is that of, again, pure existential nihilism?

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why you would think that humanity would be better off (at least in some future context) if everyone believed that there was no higher moral authority presiding over the universe, or that there was no higher eternal purpose for us as individuals.

Indeed, even Kant seems to have suggested that higher visions of reality (and that of a higher Being) were useful (even necessary) as a sort of moral "northern star," so to speak, to reference in order to help keep human morality in check.

And, sure, we could use a new and better interpretation of what that "northern star" might be, so as to eliminate the clutter of divisive (and warring) world religions.

However, I simply find it difficult to imagine how the universal adoption of, say, Buddhist tenets, or some other nihilistic (Godless/secular) vision of reality (again, sometime in the future),...

...would not simply justify and embolden the rise of even more of the Kim Jong Uns, and Putins, and Trumps of the world -- evil, power-hungry, despotic humans -- who...

(under the terms of actual nihilism, were it literally true)

...would have even less reason not to simply do whatever they want, to whomever they want, because they would have no fear of being judged and punished by a nonexistent deity.

Indeed, I believe the above had something to do with why Kant (PBUH) stated the following...

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."

Considering the near immutability of human nature, at what point in the distant future do you suppose the sentiment expressed in that quote would no longer apply?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is something like [not precisely] the below;

An apple out there is real, i.e. we can use the science-biology framework and system [FS] to prove that apple exists as real. The science FS is the gold standard of what is reality.

I have no idea what that means. Which property of the apple is its "realness" ?

It is impossible to prove God [an entity which omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent] exists as real within the science FS [gold standard of reality] because it is impossible for such an entity to even exists from the starting point of science.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is that science does.

Proving things isn't in the job description.

Generally when the term 'prove' is associated with science, it mean 'justification' via the scientific method to convince whatever is scientifically-real.

There is a real difference between a 'real' apple and a 'fake' apple that is made of plastic, clay, etc. that is painted to look exactly like a 'real' apple.
I read about fake honey which is difficult to detect but what is real honey can be detected in the science lab with sophisticated scientific tests.
To verify and justify whether the apple is real or not, we can use common sense which is not highly reliable. But, to be more reliable, we have to rely on the science-biology-chemistry-physics to test and justify [prove] an 'apple' is a scientifically-real apple.

[Veritas Aequitas]

..

Your above is very childish and driven by desperate emotions.

Note this seriously;
Listing of Causes in Experiencing an illusory God
viewtopic.php?t=40346

Indeed, I believe the above had something to do with why Kant (PBUH) stated the following...

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."

Considering the near immutability of human nature, at what point in the distant future do you suppose the sentiment expressed in that quote would no longer apply?
_______

It is very pathetic you are so arrogant based on your ignorance of Kant's whole-of-CPR.

For in order to arrive at such insight it must make use of Principles which, in fact, extend only to Objects of Possible Experience,
and which, if also applied to what cannot be an Object of Experience, always really change this into an Appearance,
thus rendering all Practical Extension of Pure Reason impossible.
I have therefore found it necessary to deny (aufheben) Knowledge {Wissen} in order to make room for Faith. {Glaube.} 1
The Dogmatism of Metaphysics, that is, the preconception that it is Possible to make headway in Metaphysics without a previous Criticism of Pure Reason, is the source of all that Unbelief, 2 always very Dogmatic, which wars against Morality.
CPR Bxxx

In the above note 'wars against morality' and thus rendering all Practical Extension of Pure Reason impossible.
In addition the original German terms are also critical and when translated into English they have lost their nuanced meanings.

A. Kant's vision and mission cover the totality of the following;
1. What can we Know - epistemology of all there is
2. What can we do - morality - act optimally
3. What can we hope for - perpetual peace [of well-being] from 1 & 2
4. If 3 not sufficient, interactive 1->3.

Epistemology in 1 confirms what is real knowledge and inform of what are illusory things, but real knowledge 'war against morality' and "make morality impossible" that is why Kant has to side aside 'knowledge' [in this case] to proceed to morality.
In order to proceed with morality, Kant stated we can think of illusions [God, Freedom, soul] but only as a useful illusion for the purpose of facilitating morality.

Analogy, if you cannot get to f Miss Universe 2023, f a fantasized illusory one is still a useful illusion.

[godelian]

Generally when the term 'prove' is associated with science, it mean 'justification' via the scientific method to convince whatever is scientifically-real.

The epistemology of science strictly forbids the use of the term "proof". Science does not "prove". Period.

[Skepdick]

Generally when the term 'prove' is associated with science, it mean 'justification' via the scientific method to convince whatever is scientifically-real.

Justification is not in the job description either.

There is a real difference between a 'real' apple and a 'fake' apple that is made of plastic, clay, etc. that is painted to look exactly like a 'real' apple.

Yeah. The "real" apple is an apple. The other things aren't apples.

I read about fake honey which is difficult to detect but what is real honey can be detected in the science lab with sophisticated scientific tests.
To verify and justify whether the apple is real or not, we can use common sense which is not highly reliable. But, to be more reliable, we have to rely on the science-biology-chemistry-physics to test and justify [prove] an 'apple' is a scientifically-real apple.

Why the sophistry? You could simply ask the question "Is this honey or not?"

And then it's simply a problem of identification.

Either it is or it isn't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally when the term 'prove' is associated with science, it mean 'justification' via the scientific method to convince whatever is scientifically-real.

Justification is not in the job description either.

There is a real difference between a 'real' apple and a 'fake' apple that is made of plastic, clay, etc. that is painted to look exactly like a 'real' apple.

Yeah. The "real" apple is an apple. The other things aren't apples.

I read about fake honey which is difficult to detect but what is real honey can be detected in the science lab with sophisticated scientific tests.
To verify and justify whether the apple is real or not, we can use common sense which is not highly reliable. But, to be more reliable, we have to rely on the science-biology-chemistry-physics to test and justify [prove] an 'apple' is a scientifically-real apple.

Why the sophistry? You could simply ask the question "Is this honey or not?"

And then it's simply a problem of identification.

Either it is or it isn't.

There is a lot of implications with whether something is scientifically-real or not.

Asking whether something is real or fake could have implication of fatalities, if 'poison' and where elements where fatality or harm are involved.

There is also the economic consideration of paying for something real rather than something-fake-deceived-as-real.

Theologically, we want to exposed an illusory God that is claimed to be so real to the extreme, believers will kill non-believers as their 'real' God command them to do so.

Not sure about you, I definitely would not want to f... a fake-woman with a dick but prefer a real woman of some credibility.

[Skepdick]

Generally when the term 'prove' is associated with science, it mean 'justification' via the scientific method to convince whatever is scientifically-real.

Justification is not in the job description either.

There is a real difference between a 'real' apple and a 'fake' apple that is made of plastic, clay, etc. that is painted to look exactly like a 'real' apple.

Yeah. The "real" apple is an apple. The other things aren't apples.

I read about fake honey which is difficult to detect but what is real honey can be detected in the science lab with sophisticated scientific tests.
To verify and justify whether the apple is real or not, we can use common sense which is not highly reliable. But, to be more reliable, we have to rely on the science-biology-chemistry-physics to test and justify [prove] an 'apple' is a scientifically-real apple.

Why the sophistry? You could simply ask the question "Is this honey or not?"

And then it's simply a problem of identification.

Either it is or it isn't.

There is a lot of implications with whether something is scientifically-real or not.

Asking whether something is real or fake could have implication of fatalities, if 'poison' and where elements where fatality or harm are involved.

There is also the economic consideration of paying for something real rather than something-fake-deceived-as-real.

Theologically, we want to exposed an illusory God that is claimed to be so real to the extreme, believers will kill non-believers as their 'real' God command them to do so.

Not sure about you, I definitely would not want to f... a fake-woman with a dick but prefer a real woman of some credibility.

Wittgenstein conceptualized philosophy as the exercise of showing the fly the way out of the bottle.

Seems you really love the bottle and would prefer to remain in it.

“Fake” and “real” are adjectives.

It isn’t the business of science to determine if the apple is “fake” or “real” once it has been established that the thing you are interacting with is, in fact, an apple.


With that attitude , the only real woman you are going to fuck will be the women (with vaginas and all) on www.realdoll.com

[Veritas Aequitas]

It isn’t the business of science to determine if the apple is “fake” or “real” once it has been established that the thing you are interacting with is, in fact, an apple.

How can one establish the thing one in interacting is in fact an apple?
Example this one
which is posted as a fake apple.
One can simply taste it to confirm it is a 'real' apple.

But take milk [3rd most common fake food] for example;
How can one establish the thing one in interacting is in fact pure [not adulterated] milk?
There are all sort of common sense testing to determine it is real milk.

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.
The most surer way to 'prove' [verify, justify] it is real milk is via rigorous testing using scientific methods.

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

So context is critical: here's AI view on the matter;

Mathematical Proof

A mathematical proof is a rigorous, logical argument that establishes the truth of a statement within a specific set of axioms (fundamental assumptions).
These proofs are built on well-defined rules and aim for absolute certainty.
They can't be proven true or false outside of the system they're based on.

Proof in Everyday Language

In everyday use, "proof" is a looser term referring to evidence that supports a conclusion.
This evidence can come from various sources like experiments, observations, or even testimonials.
While not as certain as mathematical proofs, this kind of "proof" can be persuasive in everyday contexts.

Reconciling the Two

The key difference lies in the level of certainty:

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.

[godelian]

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"?

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.

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.

[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.