Twisting Kant completely out of shape to justify a totally irrational belief system is as disgusting as it is ridiculous. The good Immanuel must be rotating in his grave at your every word.
"Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer." Immanuel Kant The species of knowledge Kant here refers to is metaphysics, and that the knowledge we cannot achieve is a knowledge of God, the world, and the soul. Although Kant did not believe that human reason could comprehend God, Kant was not atheist and he believed in God as part of his moral system.
Kant is saying that if the idea of Justice actually exists, there must be a God. This is not a rational proof of God, but a moral one. If you believe that anything goes, and there is no such thing as morality, then you might not agree with his argument.
It follows, there can be no eternal punishment, like burning in hell. For, a just God would never allow a punishment that is not proportional to the crime. Also, a perfectly just God would never create flawed creatures and then punishments for their flaws He embed in them.
well, the whole argument is based on there is a absolute right and wrong and the justice must be reached even after death. I am not so sure of either of propositions.
The funniest thing about all this is, trying to discuss this or that person's explanation for the existence of God, and moarlity, and ethics, as if the gospels dont exist or something.
Just like some commenters pointed out, this is a charitable reading of kant, but to answer your question: Critique of practical reason, specifically the chapter that deals with the postulates of practical reason.
@@Duane422 his famous book translated in English as critiques of pure reason & where you will get many types of argument regarding with God and His existence etc etc
@@amks...9423 Thank you! I am a philosophy professor who works on Kant a bit. I had never come across this argument in it’s exact form. I’ve of course read the critiques, but Sproul puts it in a very different form.
@@Duane422 maybe check his "groundwork for the metaphysics of morals". I've only just started into it, but its in many ways a more succinct recap of his critique of practical judgement. Perhaps its in there. Dont quote me on it tho.
Athiests would disagree with the assumption that there is ultimate objective reality separate from the elimination of suffering and maximization of life etc.
@@cabudagavin3896 exactly, if we can subjectively agree on the standard for morality, we can objectively determine if an action promotes suffering vs well being.
This argument seems to me completely invalid. It deduces how it is from how it ought to be! Premise: There ought to be an absolute standard for ethics and justice. Conclusion: there is such a standard! It seems obvious to me that this does not follow. It is desirable, but it does not follow. - How can dr Sproul say that? I am an amateur in philosophy (and a believer), but I understand logic reasoning. Please explain.
I don't think he said that. He is saying that if the idea of Justice exists, then there must be a God. If you don't think Justice exists, then Kant is saying anything goes, and the idea of justice is only a personal preference as to what is convenient for that person. So if you don't believe in Justice then you don't have to agree that God exists. Although Plato discussed other universals, such as mathematics, that exist apart from any one individual or material existence, as a similar proof.
big flaw in your (I won't say Kant's) argument -- a practical ground for ethics turns ethics into nothing but certain behaviors to win a result. The God of justice justifies himself or rather itself, essentially a non-sentient supercomputer in this way, nothing to do with the God of love and the soul's freedom. mammon is a means of exchange with no value of itself. Kant's religion is the same thing, a way to get a practical result. If God the absolute good exists, he is the opposite of mammon. He is replete and imbues all things and deeds with sufficiency in themselves, until we fall from grace.
There is a verse in the qur an in the surah Baqara where God says that those who do good deeds, and believe in Him and the other world wil surely be saved
"Good" is a word used to describe a point on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values like human wellbeing, empathy and equality. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of this "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
Atheists say: Man created God, not vice versa. But then the question arises: Why? Why did He create Him, not once, but a thousand times, and not in one place, but everywhere on earth?
Man is inherently self-righteous. Morality and ethics is relative when it comes to his choices and community. The sovereignty of God that surpasses man's judgement I doubt is fabricated by man, because by no means does it benefit him ultimately. And yet the standard of not just the "good" God but a perfect one, knowingly unattainable, holds the harmony of society and community better altogether, than the common man's standard. If we go by the mostly Godless generation today, everyone is struggling to fight for their own morality and ethics. People argue their own perceived "justice" and ironically just results in a much more deprived state of society. But when we abide by God's standard, there is none to argue; because His law is sovereign above all else. He is not simply "good". Good can be relative. God is HOLY and absolute. I think there's also often a misinterpretation of what Holiness is. It goes beyond good and evil. Holiness goes by the law of God. It gets more in depth than this and more theological, but I hope I was able to get my message across about why God is not just simply a "good" moral standard fabricated by man.
@@patchi2799 // "the sovereignty of God which surpasses man's judgement" // 🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
See Plato's Euthyphro dilemma on problems equating God and justice. Examining Plato's dilemma does not make a slam dunk points in the good pastors sloppy philosophy so he should stay away from logic and stick to belief.
Well, in that case we should decomission police and all the othe law enforcement agencies. Get rid of the constitution. Transition to anarchy. There is the ultimate justice anyways, so people will be moral just because of that. Let's do that and see where it takes us. I will tell you one thing. Most of us will find out much sooner if there is this ultimate justice.
Sounds a lot like a circular argument to justify the Christian's version of a personal God. If a God with that amount of power wanted to help humans rather than wait until they are dead to punish them, he would not have been AWOL for 2000 years.
If there is no god, everything is permissible, that is simple not true. If god not exist, that do not implies moral relativism or moral nihilism, we know what Kant said about that - we just need a ordinary human mind to grasp what is wrong or right.
this seems like a charitable reading of Kant's writing. Kant thought that we ought to believe in god so people act morally but we cant know anything beyond human experience.
Everyone believes in God,”God’s Eternal power and Divine nature are clear to see,so man is without excuse”,but the hostile man is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. The day of judgement will come to everyone,but the “Good News” is there is a mediator between God and Man-Jesus Christ. Repent and put your trust in Him.
@@chrismachin2166 that is certainly one interpretation but this really is not what Kant's philosophy is about. The religious sentiment is nice but you are missing out on some rich philosophical content if you don't actually read the original literature.
@@dougmasters4561 I wouldn't recommend reading all of it, but also wouldn't recommend talking about early modern philosophy as if one were an expert on it just to push religious propaganda
@@6ixthhydro652 The fact is that despite your interpretation of Kant, he did believe in God and was not an atheist. However, it can be argued that Kant's thinking paved the way for many atheistic thinkers after him. Kant said "Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer." So just because Kant thought we cannot rationally achieve knowledge of God, did not mean that Kant was an atheist.
The most succinct and best explained version I have ever heard for the moral argument. This one needs to be memorized, it is that good.
It’s still not convincing anyone tho.
Love Kant and this argument is strong. But... where is it necessary true that there is an ultimate justice at all...
Twisting Kant completely out of shape to justify a totally irrational belief system is as disgusting as it is ridiculous. The good Immanuel must be rotating in his grave at your every word.
"Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer." Immanuel Kant
The species of knowledge Kant here refers to is metaphysics, and that the knowledge we cannot achieve is a knowledge of God, the world, and the soul. Although Kant did not believe that human reason could comprehend God, Kant was not atheist and he believed in God as part of his moral system.
There is nothing either right or wrong, but thinking makes it so!
Who knows or how can anyone know the morality of god. First one must prove that there is a god!
Kant is saying that if the idea of Justice actually exists, there must be a God. This is not a rational proof of God, but a moral one. If you believe that anything goes, and there is no such thing as morality, then you might not agree with his argument.
RC the voice given to people that won’t read their Bibles
It's BECAUSE I read the bible that I'm an Atheist.
What does that mean?
All things are permissible but not all are edifying - 1corinthians 10:23
Examine all things and hold fast to what is good - 1thessalonians 5:21
It follows, there can be no eternal punishment, like burning in hell. For, a just God would never allow a punishment that is not proportional to the crime. Also, a perfectly just God would never create flawed creatures and then punishments for their flaws He embed in them.
For there to be justice there must be a perfect judge🎉❤ there must be being omnipotent know all facts of the case.
Didn't St. Paul say, "ALL things are permissable, but not all things are profitable."
well, the whole argument is based on there is a absolute right and wrong and the justice must be reached even after death. I am not so sure of either of propositions.
The funniest thing about all this is, trying to discuss this or that person's explanation for the existence of God, and moarlity, and ethics, as if the gospels dont exist or something.
But suppose that judge only exists in our minds?
Where does Kant say this?
Just like some commenters pointed out, this is a charitable reading of kant, but to answer your question:
Critique of practical reason, specifically the chapter that deals with the postulates of practical reason.
@@Subhuman_Filth oh ok that’s what I figured ! Thanks.
@@Duane422 his famous book translated in English as critiques of pure reason & where you will get many types of argument regarding with God and His existence etc etc
@@amks...9423 Thank you! I am a philosophy professor who works on Kant a bit. I had never come across this argument in it’s exact form. I’ve of course read the critiques, but Sproul puts it in a very different form.
@@Duane422 maybe check his "groundwork for the metaphysics of morals". I've only just started into it, but its in many ways a more succinct recap of his critique of practical judgement. Perhaps its in there. Dont quote me on it tho.
Amazing
This summarises rather succinctly the ultimate horror story for atheists.
Still doesn’t prove a god exists.
Athiests would disagree with the assumption that there is ultimate objective reality separate from the elimination of suffering and maximization of life etc.
@@cabudagavin3896 exactly, if we can subjectively agree on the standard for morality, we can objectively determine if an action promotes suffering vs well being.
This argument seems to me completely invalid. It deduces how it is from how it ought to be! Premise: There ought to be an absolute standard for ethics and justice. Conclusion: there is such a standard! It seems obvious to me that this does not follow. It is desirable, but it does not follow. - How can dr Sproul say that? I am an amateur in philosophy (and a believer), but I understand logic reasoning. Please explain.
I don't think he said that. He is saying that if the idea of Justice exists, then there must be a God. If you don't think Justice exists, then Kant is saying anything goes, and the idea of justice is only a personal preference as to what is convenient for that person. So if you don't believe in Justice then you don't have to agree that God exists. Although Plato discussed other universals, such as mathematics, that exist apart from any one individual or material existence, as a similar proof.
What if you are judged meanwhile you live?
big flaw in your (I won't say Kant's) argument -- a practical ground for ethics turns ethics into nothing but certain behaviors to win a result. The God of justice justifies himself or rather itself, essentially a non-sentient supercomputer in this way, nothing to do with the God of love and the soul's freedom. mammon is a means of exchange with no value of itself. Kant's religion is the same thing, a way to get a practical result. If God the absolute good exists, he is the opposite of mammon. He is replete and imbues all things and deeds with sufficiency in themselves, until we fall from grace.
The moon silly, might as well call the atmosphere the same thing
It's a measure of Judgement get it right Love covers a multitude of sins
Yes but love is not permission to sin. We all have the right to make our own choices . But we don't get to choose the consequences
"God" is perfect.
Allahu Akbar (God is The Greatest). Love the mention of the grave, and the judgement in the hereafter.
There is a verse in the qur an in the surah Baqara where God says that those who do good deeds, and believe in Him and the other world wil surely be saved
How can I be CERTAIN of eternal life in Heaven BEFORE I die?
@@chrismachin2166 depends on what you mean by certain.
"Good" is a word used to describe a point on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values like human wellbeing, empathy and equality. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of this "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
Is the scale of good fabricated by man’s intellect or does it exist as an absolute truth and is then accounted for by man’s intellect?
Atheists say: Man created God, not vice versa. But then the question arises:
Why? Why did He create Him, not once, but a thousand times, and not in one
place, but everywhere on earth?
@@timothyjackson4653 the latter
Man is inherently self-righteous. Morality and ethics is relative when it comes to his choices and community. The sovereignty of God that surpasses man's judgement I doubt is fabricated by man, because by no means does it benefit him ultimately. And yet the standard of not just the "good" God but a perfect one, knowingly unattainable, holds the harmony of society and community better altogether, than the common man's standard. If we go by the mostly Godless generation today, everyone is struggling to fight for their own morality and ethics. People argue their own perceived "justice" and ironically just results in a much more deprived state of society. But when we abide by God's standard, there is none to argue; because His law is sovereign above all else. He is not simply "good". Good can be relative. God is HOLY and absolute. I think there's also often a misinterpretation of what Holiness is. It goes beyond good and evil. Holiness goes by the law of God. It gets more in depth than this and more theological, but I hope I was able to get my message across about why God is not just simply a "good" moral standard fabricated by man.
@@patchi2799
// "the sovereignty of God which surpasses man's judgement" //
🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ??
If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
See Plato's Euthyphro dilemma on problems equating God and justice. Examining Plato's dilemma does not make a slam dunk points in the good pastors sloppy philosophy so he should stay away from logic and stick to belief.
Covid I don't think God is weak
just because god brought covid it dosen't mean that god dose not exist😕
@@mamuyedunga1260 who said god brought covid?? lol. Does free will not exist all of a sudden?
Well, in that case we should decomission police and all the othe law enforcement agencies. Get rid of the constitution. Transition to anarchy. There is the ultimate justice anyways, so people will be moral just because of that. Let's do that and see where it takes us. I will tell you one thing. Most of us will find out much sooner if there is this ultimate justice.
Let's not talk about richousness and playing God one JUDGE and you are not him I you reap what you sow I don't blame God for anything he my protector
Sounds a lot like a circular argument to justify the Christian's version of a personal God. If a God with that amount of power wanted to help humans rather than wait until they are dead to punish them, he would not have been AWOL for 2000 years.
If there is no god, everything is permissible, that is simple not true. If god not exist, that do not implies moral relativism or moral nihilism, we know what Kant said about that - we just need a ordinary human mind to grasp what is wrong or right.
this seems like a charitable reading of Kant's writing. Kant thought that we ought to believe in god so people act morally but we cant know anything beyond human experience.
Everyone believes in God,”God’s Eternal power and Divine nature are clear to see,so man is without excuse”,but the hostile man is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
The day of judgement will come to everyone,but the “Good News” is there is a mediator between God and Man-Jesus Christ. Repent and put your trust in Him.
@@chrismachin2166 that is certainly one interpretation but this really is not what Kant's philosophy is about. The religious sentiment is nice but you are missing out on some rich philosophical content if you don't actually read the original literature.
@@6ixthhydro652to be fair, while his is not the most difficult to get through by any stretch, reading through it isnt for everyone.
@@dougmasters4561 I wouldn't recommend reading all of it, but also wouldn't recommend talking about early modern philosophy as if one were an expert on it just to push religious propaganda
@@6ixthhydro652 The fact is that despite your interpretation of Kant, he did believe in God and was not an atheist. However, it can be argued that Kant's thinking paved the way for many atheistic thinkers after him.
Kant said "Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer."
So just because Kant thought we cannot rationally achieve knowledge of God, did not mean that Kant was an atheist.
Hilarious.