Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

[godelian]

It is ridiculous to assert "He [Kant] is not qualified to criticize Gödel's work."
I bet if Kant has lived during Godel's time, Kant [given his intelligence] would have refuted Godel's argument using the latest mathematics from a mathematical perspective.

Kant rejected mathematics. He saw it as impure reason because of the visual puzzling in Euclidean geometry. He purposely ignored Descartes and Gauss' work in defining coordinate systems and turning geometry into a branch of algebra. The problem of visual puzzling was already getting solved but Kant kept referring to the 2500-year old "Elements" by Euclid to argue impurity in mathematical reasoning. Kant did not even use the latest mathematics of his own time. Why would he have been interested in using the latest mathematics today?

Kant was a lecturer in logic during his time.

That was before logic became a subdivision in mathematics.

During antiquity, all knowledge was termed "philosophy".

Gradually, science split off into its own domain. Mathematics also split off into its own domain. Mathematics absorbed logic, which no longer legitimately exists outside mathematics. Even a good part of metaphysics was absorbed by mathematics. The theory of truth is now mostly mathematical. As soon as a solid epistemic method becomes available for a subject, it is no longer mere method-less philosophy but part of something rigorously methodical.

Most of what Kant wrote about, is now reallocated to and governed by a serious method. The only part that is left in philosophy proper nowadays is the part for which there is no method. That is also what Kant shone in: arguments with no method whatsoever.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is ridiculous to assert "He [Kant] is not qualified to criticize Gödel's work."
I bet if Kant has lived during Godel's time, Kant [given his intelligence] would have refuted Godel's argument using the latest mathematics from a mathematical perspective.

Kant rejected mathematics. He saw it as impure reason because of the visual puzzling in Euclidean geometry. He purposely ignored Descartes and Gauss' work in defining coordinate systems and turning geometry into a branch of algebra. The problem of visual puzzling was already getting solved but Kant kept referring to the 2500-year old "Elements" by Euclid to argue impurity in mathematical reasoning. Kant did not even use the latest mathematics of his own time. Why would he have been interested in using the latest mathematics today?

Kant was a lecturer in logic during his time.

That was before logic became a subdivision in mathematics.

During antiquity, all knowledge was termed "philosophy".

Gradually, science split off into its own domain. Mathematics also split off into its own domain. Mathematics absorbed logic, which no longer legitimately exists outside mathematics. Even a good part of metaphysics was absorbed by mathematics. The theory of truth is now mostly mathematical. As soon as a solid epistemic method becomes available for a subject, it is no longer mere method-less philosophy but part of something rigorously methodical.

Most of what Kant wrote about, is now reallocated to and governed by a serious method. The only part that is left in philosophy proper nowadays is the part for which there is no method. That is also what Kant shone in: arguments with no method whatsoever.

Kant never rejected Mathematics wholesale. In fact, Kant has the highest respect for Mathematics along with Science.

I wrote this earlier:

viewtopic.php?p=704643#p704643

Re your earlier reference to mathematics and that Kant rejected Mathematics;
It has no relevant to the topic at all;

This is your quote [without the blue portion] with the specific CPR Reference:

A160 B199
Such principles mathematical science possesses, but their application to experience, consequently their objective validity, nay the possibility of such a priori synthetical cognitions (the deduction thereof) rests entirely upon the pure understanding.
On this account, I shall not reckon among my principles those of mathematics;
though I shall include those upon the possibility and objective validity à priori, of principles of the mathematical science, which, consequently, are to be looked upon as the principle of these, and which proceed from conceptions to intuition, and not from intuition to conceptions.
Mickeljohn's Translation

This is the NK Smith's translation;

CPR A160 B199

For though they [Faculty of Concepts] are mediated by the Understanding, they are not derived from Pure Concepts but from Pure Intuitions. A160 B199
We find such Principles in Mathematics.
The question, however, of their application to Experience, that is, of their Objective Validity,
nay, even the Deduction of the Possibility of such Synthetic a priori Knowledge, must always carry us back to the Pure Understanding.

While, therefore, I leave aside the Principles of Mathematics, I shall none the less include those [more fundamental] Principles upon which the Possibility and a priori Objective Validity of Mathematics are grounded.
These latter [fundamental principles re Mathematics] must be regarded as the foundation 2 of all Mathematical Principles.
They proceed from Concepts to Intuition, not from Intuition to Concepts.

It has no relevant to the topic at all; I don't want to go into the details of the above in their context to the whole section and whole CPR.

Your refutation should be based on the following;
A summary of Kant's argument is this;
1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
2. All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument,
3. It is impossible to prove God exists as real at all.

You should prove Kant's premise 1 is wrong based on general principles of the Ontological Proof which would include Godel's amongst others.

[godelian]

Kant never rejected Mathematics wholesale.

Kant inadvertently said things that nowadays belong to the mathematical domain, such as "exists(n) is not a predicate" (which is unsubstantiated) or "numbers are not axiomatic" (which is wrong). Kant was not prepared for the fact that mathematics was not done yet carrying out its massive land grab on general philosophy.

Science is actually philosophy but with a very particular epistemology.
Mathematics is actually philosophy but with a very particular epistemology.

There is still some genuine general philosophy left but it has retreated a large distance from where it was in Kant's time. If Kant had been a great philosopher, he would have seen that coming from miles away. Aristotle saw it coming. Kant clearly didn't.

[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?

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.

You don't seem to get it. Much in the same way you don't get any pussy...

How would the consumers tell the difference between a real certificate which signifies that the milk was, in fact, examined by a scientific law and underwent all the necessary tests.

And a fake certificate which says the milk underwent the necessary scientific tests. But didn't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You don't seem to get it. Much in the same way you don't get any pussy...

How would the consumers tell the difference between a real certificate which signifies that the milk was, in fact, examined by a scientific law and underwent all the necessary tests.

And a fake certificate which says the milk underwent the necessary scientific tests. But didn't.

You have to dig into reality with pragmatism.

As I had stated there is no absoluteness and certainty with realness and truth.
Regardless of the above, what I stated above are already committed in practice.
At the extreme, many who were convicted of severe crimes has been put to death based on the scientific tests [forensic, DNA, etc.] by various certified labs and scientists all over the world.

Did the prosecutors & defendant legal teams and judges rejected the evidences provided by ALL the certified scientific labs and scientists who provided the scientific evidences?
Some evidences had been questioned and some mistakes made, but the reality is many convicted ones had been put to death with reliance on evidences by certified scientific laboratories and professionals.

The above is the answers to your 'how':
"How would the consumers tell the difference between a real certificate which signifies that the milk was, in fact, examined by a scientific law and underwent all the necessary tests?"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant never rejected Mathematics wholesale.

Kant inadvertently said things that nowadays belong to the mathematical domain, such as "exists(n) is not a predicate" (which is unsubstantiated) or "numbers are not axiomatic" (which is wrong). Kant was not prepared for the fact that mathematics was not done yet carrying out its massive land grab on general philosophy.

Science is actually philosophy but with a very particular epistemology.
Mathematics is actually philosophy but with a very particular epistemology.

There is still some genuine general philosophy left but it has retreated a large distance from where it was in Kant's time. If Kant had been a great philosopher, he would have seen that coming from miles away. Aristotle saw it coming. Kant clearly didn't.

Aristotle??? [384–322 BC]
Aristotle was a great philosopher but the main theories of his philosophy contributed to loads of contentious issues, e.g. his Substance Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Aristotle

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

The above has contributed to the GREAT DIVIDE between Rationalism vs Empiricism, e.g.
science [empiricism] vs. mathematics [rationalism].

The whole of Kant's CPR is leveraged on the argument, the thing-in-itself is an illusion; with that exposure of it as an illusion, Kant bridged the CHASM between rationalism and empiricism. This is the reason why Kant is recognized as one of the greatest W philosopher of all times.

All Present Western Philosophies are Footnotes to Kant's
viewtopic.php?t=41525

Philosophy is the meta-tool to facilitate the flourishing and well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity. Mathematics and Science [plus logic and others] are the sub-tools of philosophy.
This is why we have the 'breakaway' philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science to deal with their respective meta- issues beyond their theories.

Science is the most credible and objective tool to realize and cognize reality while mathematics is merely a tool of science and other fields of knowledge.
Do you deny this?
Your elevation of mathematics as king or God of knowledge is wishful thinking, i.e. not realistic.

Thus Godel's ontological mathematical argument for God-exists is merely a subset of the main set of Ontological Arguments for God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

• 1. The Ontological Argument leveraged on the thing-in-itself as the necessary being, i.e. God. This is where you claim God exists [in-itself, by-itself] beyond the physical.
  2. As I had stated above, Kant has argued in his CPR, the thing-in-itself is an illusion.
  3. Therefore, God is an illusion, albeit as Kant acknowledged, a very critical, useful and necessary illusion for therapeutic and other reasons.

You need to read the CPR thoroughly to understand [not agree with] Kant argument before you are qualified to critique it.

Btw;
“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” - Aristotle.
Also note Socrates' "Know Thyself"

Since you are [seemingly] an ardent fan of Aristotle, do you really know yourself [especially what is going on inside your brain] and why you are clinging to an illusory god so dogmatically and fundamentally?
To the extreme, not you, many of your fellow believers had committed terrible evil and violence [genocides, etc.] against non believers in the name of a God [which is illusory].

[godelian]

Aristotle was a great philosopher but the main theories of his philosophy contributed to loads of contentious issues, e.g. his Substance Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Aristotle

I have never claimed that everything Aristotle ever wrote, was correct. I just wrote that some things that Aristotle wrote, are amazingly correct.

The whole of Kant's CPR is leveraged on the argument, the thing-in-itself is an illusion; with that exposure of it as an illusion, Kant bridged the CHASM between rationalism and empiricism. This is the reason why Kant is recognized as one of the greatest W philosopher of all times.

I do not use Kant to describe the difference between mathematics and science. As far as I am concerned, it is an epistemic issue. In mathematics, claims are justified by provability. In science, they are justified by testability. If the claim is about the physical universe, then try science. If it is about an abstract, Platonic universe, then try mathematics. I do not care about "the thing-in-itself" narrative.

Mathematics and Science [plus logic and others] are the sub-tools of philosophy.

Mathematics and Science are epistemic domains in philosophy. governed by a particular justification method. If it is possible to use provability, then try mathematics. If it is a physical-world problem, and therefore only possible to use testability, then try science. Otherwise, there is no standard justification method available for the problem.

Science is the most credible and objective tool to realize and cognize reality while mathematics is merely a tool of science and other fields of knowledge.
Do you deny this?

Science and mathematics do not overlap, because abstract, Platonic universes and the physical universe do not overlap.

Your elevation of mathematics as king or God of knowledge is wishful thinking, i.e. not realistic.

Mathematics cannot handle all problems. The method only works for abstract, Platonic worlds for which we have an explicit axiomatic system definition. However, if the problem can be addressed with mathematics, no other method can overrule it.

Thus Godel's ontological mathematical argument for God-exists is merely a subset of the main set of Ontological Arguments for God.

No, by turning the problem into a mathematical one, Gödel has effectively raised the bar. Any method-less approach must now make way for mathematics.

Mathematics expels everything else. Mathematics does not tolerate competition. If the problem can be addressed by mathematics, then mathematics reigns supreme.

You need to read the CPR thoroughly to understand [not agree with] Kant argument before you are qualified to critique it.

No, because Kant's nebulous rants in Critique of Pure Reason cannot overrule higher-order modal logic. As soon as a problem can successfully be targeted by mathematics, everything else gets pushed aside. Mathematics does not tolerate competition.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Aristotle was a great philosopher but the main theories of his philosophy contributed to loads of contentious issues, e.g. his Substance Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Aristotle

I have never claimed that everything Aristotle ever wrote, was correct. I just wrote that some things that Aristotle wrote, are amazingly correct.

The whole of Kant's CPR is leveraged on the argument, the thing-in-itself is an illusion; with that exposure of it as an illusion, Kant bridged the CHASM between rationalism and empiricism. This is the reason why Kant is recognized as one of the greatest W philosopher of all times.

I do not use Kant to describe the difference between mathematics and science. As far as I am concerned, it is an epistemic issue. In mathematics, claims are justified by provability. In science, they are justified by testability. If the claim is about the physical universe, then try science. If it is about an abstract, Platonic universe, then try mathematics. I do not care about "the thing-in-itself" narrative.

Mathematics and Science [plus logic and others] are the sub-tools of philosophy.

Mathematics and Science are epistemic domains in philosophy. governed by a particular justification method. If it is possible to use provability, then try mathematics. If it is a physical-world problem, and therefore only possible to use testability, then try science. Otherwise, there is no standard justification method available for the problem.

Science is the most credible and objective tool to realize and cognize reality while mathematics is merely a tool of science and other fields of knowledge.
Do you deny this?

Science and mathematics do not overlap, because abstract, Platonic universes and the physical universe do not overlap.

Your elevation of mathematics as king or God of knowledge is wishful thinking, i.e. not realistic.

Mathematics cannot handle all problems. The method only works for abstract, Platonic worlds for which we have an explicit axiomatic system definition. However, if the problem can be addressed with mathematics, no other method can overrule it.

Thus Godel's ontological mathematical argument for God-exists is merely a subset of the main set of Ontological Arguments for God.

No, by turning the problem into a mathematical one, Gödel has effectively raised the bar. Any method-less approach must now make way for mathematics.

Mathematics expels everything else. Mathematics does not tolerate competition. If the problem can be addressed by mathematics, then mathematics reigns supreme.

You need to read the CPR thoroughly to understand [not agree with] Kant argument before you are qualified to critique it.

No, because Kant's nebulous rants in Critique of Pure Reason cannot overrule higher-order modal logic. As soon as a problem can successfully be targeted by mathematics, everything else gets pushed aside. Mathematics does not tolerate competition.

I summarized the above within this thread;

Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic
posting.php?mode=reply&t=42127

[Skepdick]

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.

You don't seem to get it. Much in the same way you don't get any pussy...

How would the consumers tell the difference between a real certificate which signifies that the milk was, in fact, examined by a scientific law and underwent all the necessary tests.

And a fake certificate which says the milk underwent the necessary scientific tests. But didn't.

You have to dig into reality with pragmatism.

As I had stated there is no absoluteness and certainty with realness and truth.
Regardless of the above, what I stated above are already committed in practice.

I am not talking about absolute certainty. I am talking about ANY certainty to resolve the deadlock.

There is a sticker on the milk saying it underwent scientific testing.

Maybe the sticker is real.
Maybe the sticker is fake.

The scale is balanced - your certainty is identical with respect to both.

Which one are you less certain of?

The above is the answers to your 'how':
"How would the consumers tell the difference between a real certificate which signifies that the milk was, in fact, examined by a scientific law and underwent all the necessary tests?"

No, it doesn't.

This post was endorsed and certified by the International Science Council.

Real or fake? How do you know?