I love it when people have the ability to break down incredibly rich and difficult subjects so that ordinary folks (like me!) can grasp it. This is the gift of a true teacher.
Saying anything about God is as ridiculous as trying to describe the smell of radio wave" Radiation=real but can't be experienced God=unreal but can be experienced God= creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.: No.1: Universe wasn't created it existed always otherwise it wouldn't exist at all; No.2 There's no morality in humanity nor Nature=there's no supreme personality of Godhead as we wish for No.3 Evolution is blind=no Devine plan (No supernatural intervention & resurrection is ancient Egyptian absolute rule catalyst "whoever will work and die for Pharaoh (=the son of God) =will be resurrected with the Pharaoh" how can you prove that God exists=because of Soul illusion of Self as separate from Flesh=no different from TV on and off....
@@douglasparise3986Saying anything about God is as ridiculous as trying to describe the smell of radio wave" Radiation=real but can't be experienced God=unreal but can be experienced God= creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.: No.1: Universe wasn't created it existed always otherwise it wouldn't exist at all; No.2 There's no morality in humanity nor Nature=there's no supreme personality of Godhead as we wish for No.3 Evolution is blind=no Devine plan (No supernatural intervention & resurrection is ancient Egyptian absolute rule catalyst "whoever will work and die for Pharaoh (=the son of God) =will be resurrected with the Pharaoh" how can you prove that God exists=because of Soul illusion of Self as separate from Flesh=no different from TV on and off....
Tried to read Critique of Pure Reason in my 20’s, 50 years ago. About every 2 or 3 pages I had to go back and read again… many times. It was so heavy… but awesome. Unbelievable thinker! Never finished it. I’m no dummy, masters in Physics, and this might be the deepest book ever.
You're right, it is the deepest book ever. I've read it cover to cover three times and re-read the most amazingly deep passages until I could recite them word for word. But Kant also wrote "Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics which can Qualify as a Science" as a more popular introduction to the essential idea at the heart of Critique: that knowledge of the Cosmos can be systematised, from a single First Principle, with the answer to his question - "How are synthetic a priori judgements possible?" You could read Prolegomena in a few hours and it's free on the internet.
Very nice! Thank you. I began college life in 1972 as a philosophy major. (Changed to economics after getting my questions answered in existentialism class). Most classes were quite technical and deep so I appreciate these lovely insights.
The Kantilope: a philosophical creature grazing the vast conceptual savannas, feeding on dry perspectives and forever drawn to the elusive noumenal. It roams in search of insights, pondering freedom, morality, and the hidden 'thing-in-itself' beyond appearances. I shot the last one ;)
Saying anything about God is as ridiculous as trying to describe the smell of radio wave" Radiation=real but can't be experienced God=unreal but can be experienced God= creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.: No.1: Universe wasn't created it existed always otherwise it wouldn't exist at all; No.2 There's no morality in humanity nor Nature=there's no supreme personality of Godhead as we wish for No.3 Evolution is blind=no Devine plan (No supernatural intervention & resurrection is ancient Egyptian absolute rule catalyst "whoever will work and die for Pharaoh (=the son of God) =will be resurrected with the Pharaoh" how can you prove that God exists=because of Soul illusion of Self as separate from Flesh=no different from TV on and off....
Love Kant, his phenomenal / noumenal blew my mind, that we ,with our human brains cant every comprehend and experience everything. That God could exist but we cant really know him as he is.
IMO it's a dead end of reasoning. For Kant, noumenal was something that can't be detected by our senses. But it doesn't mean it can't be detected by other means. We can't see, smell nor touch radio waves but we have tools to do it for us. Radio waves are very well defined. But there is no clear and logically coherent definition of god. Existing definitions depend on the given religion. Strangely enough observations of our world are more inline with God of Islam than Christian God. I.e. Allah is not all loving therefore suffering can be easier explained by Islam than by Christianity. Nevertheless there is no demonstrable evidence for neither of them.
This theory is actually called idealism and it dates back before Kant; other philosophers like Berkeley and even Plato had a similar approach. Nothing new here.
@@tjblues01 There's also the fact that if you define the noumenal as "things in themselves" and subject those things to the act of being known (become aware of), the criteria by which they can be known (become aware of via rational or experiential means), there's an instance of assuming/affirming the ontology of the thing in itself which presuppose a direct affirmation followed by a denial of the means used to make that a statement. It 's self defeating.
@@kaleidoscopicvoid Doesn't work like that, Kant has his starting point I have mine, we have similar logical systems that we presuppose the same basic shenanigans. He begins with the idea of "Known" and "Unknowable" in principle. "Unknowable is an unreachable category here that can't be address unless something about it is known which would make it "Known". Kant being trifling per usual.
This is Kant's initial position, but his ethico-theology and physico-theology at the end of the third critique form the basis of reasonable belief in God as a moral lawgiver and world-cause. From this we can assert God has purposes and values which align with his purpose in creation - the faithful and pious obedience of man to the moral law.
@@maximilyen You missed the point of the Bible completely. Most of the Old Testament is to show that human are sinners, in other words can not keep up with the Law of God, can not do the right thing at anytime and tend to do what is immoral and enjoy evil deeds. So of course it will contains immoral things.
@@maximilyen So "God does not exist" is your claim. What is your argument to back it ? (If you are serious enough for a civilized debate, but feel free not to reply if what you want to do is playing around and mock others without a responsible manner).
@@maximilyen would you actually deal with Kant's argument in regards to the moral argument for the existence of God? If you don't know his argument would you like to know so that you can actually refute it not being completely off topic by going to the bible or immoral things in books?
OK soooo. If radio waves can be noumenal but can be made into per say "music" by a radio receiver, than if god is noumenal he may not be able to be felt, smelled, or tasted, but with the right "instrument be "heard" or "felt" by people?
I agree! We are a temple. We were created for the purpose of receiving information (and much more of course) and that being mainly of the Glory of God, which he has hidden in His Son, the One who reveal the One who can't be seen and Dwell in unapproachable light.
It is a good point you make but if God is communicating to people he is not doing a good job in sending a cohesive message to humans, we are all over the place about religions and Gods.
You're inappropriately extending the metaphor. The metaphor is just trying to help you understand the difference between the phenomenal and the noumenal. The point is that all we have access to is the phenomenal - the objects of the five senses and thoughts in our mind that appear to us. We don't have access to anything more. Kant spent his philosophic career trying to find a bridge that we can, for sure, know something about the noumenal through our experience of the phenomenal. But late in life he had to admit he could not find such a bridge - the mind only assumes the noumenal but it doesn't know it. And this doesn't just go for God. It goes for everything. The way most people think is that their senses are receiving perceptions (the phenomena) that are caused by real objects in a physical world (noumena). But the latter part is only ever assumed. The same would be with God. Any phenomena that the mind attributes to God would just be an assumption. The phenomena, as in the experiences of sight, hearing, etc is itself undeniable, but that there is a real entity, independent of your experience of it, that is the cause behind them is just an assumption. Sometimes people say, "The map is not the territory," and it expresses a very similar insight, if not the same insight. What our mind attributes the cause of perception to is just the mind reading a map. But a map is never the territory.
Kant( according to the brief video) is an agnostic, a sceptic. But I have to agree with Blaise Pascal’s comment: “ Le coeur a ses raisons que la Raison ne connaît point” meaning: the heart has its reasons which Reason doesn’t know anything about.
Heart like any other organs functions for the body to be survive, it has nothing to do with your cognition in brain it's just poetic pronunciation.....
@@suatustel746 He doesnt mean literally heart. He means sometimes people have a feeling and we cant pinpoint it to the brain with 100 percent certainty therefore some people can assume that that feeling is something else and they can decide to trust it. From materialistic perspective even if that feeling of a god existing is something you have its still in the brain and can be misleading but some people believe in soul.
This makes me think of the philosophy of Epicurus Epicurus who evaded the problem of the gods by affirming that these being happy and possessing everything, they will never turn to us, and that we therefore have nothing to expect from them. If the gods exist, men have no interest or importance for them. The problem of the existence of god is therefore also without interest.
God’s blessing, mercy, and peace be upon you, my beloved reader 😊. I am encouraging you to worship who created us to be in a wonderful place in the afterlife. I have the evidence that our Creator gave us to persuade us of his existence ❤️. Let me show you some shards of evidence. Firstly, research certain that there is innate feeling in the humans encouraging him to worship his god. secondly, doomsday achieves justice. thirdly, the atoms, creatures, universe, earth with their perfection and ecosystem make us sure that our god exists as chemistry doesn’t care about this stuff. Fourthly, the scientific, linguistic, parapsychological, and historical miracles in the Holy Quran make us certain that this book is from a mighty powerful God. fifth, No one discloses our creation but our God in the Quran. lastly, there isn’t anyone who could do the challenge of creating one chapter like the Quran that has 114 chapters because of its miracles in every aspect. Now, you must: ask your creator for guidance by raising your hand to the sky and asking him with the real intent of finding the truth. Research for these miracles by reading the Holy Quran. watch the religious comparisons and atheists enter Islam after answering their questions and showing them the evidence made by doctor Zakir naik. Ask Muslims to help you in your research. Finally, certain that our creator is more gracious and merciful than you can ever think 🥺.
Yes. Very clear and cogent explanation of a difficult topic. Kant is very abstract. Something about the nature of his language. The analogies were helpful. Thank you.
TO THINK someone thought so deeply on an abstract level 220 years ago that is relevant today. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, applied to computers, suggests that our understanding of tech is shaped by how we perceive and think about it, but we can’t fully grasp the true essence of its inner workings.
Alot of what Kantt says is strikingly similar to what the Buddha said. Not only this, but also Kant's morality and categorical imperative as well. The Buddha said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." -Samyutta Nikaya 35.23 (Sabba Sutta) The Buddha too said, we cannot really know whether something exists or not. We cannot experience anything as it truly is. We can only experience as much as our 5 senses can capture. We can only experience our own mental image of sights, sounds, scents, tastes, bodily feelings, and thoughts, but we cannot actually experience the object itself. The Buddha said, the whole world revolves around these 6. For example, the light rays which a human can see, are different from the visible spectrum of light rays another animal can see. The visible spectrum is very small compared to the full EM spectrum. The same goes for sound waves heard by the ear. There is more which your senses cannot detect, than they can detect. Even the hardness felt by the body, scents smelled by the nose, and tastes felt by the tongue, have their own range. So, when a human looks at an object. And a cat, and a dog, and a mouse all look at it. Because our eyes can see only different frequencies of light, we all see it differently. So then, we cannot say that we see it correctly. Because ultimately, it's all subjective. It's exactly like the example in the video, about how a camera takes a picture of a tree, and the camera represents it as 0's and 1's. But the tree is not actually 0's and 1's. The same thing is happening with us. So the Buddha says, we have not actually liked, or disliked anyone, or anything, or any place. When something comes to our senses, our mind creates a mental image of it (pali: mano rupa). And based on this mental image, the body or mind feels a sensation (Pali: vedana). And this sensation is either pleasant or unpleasant. And it is this sensation that people like, or dislike, not the external world itself. We only like or dislike our own mental images and thoughts, in other words. For example, When you read a story book. The book is just letters. But you become sad, or angry, or happy, according to the story. But where is the story? The story is actually just something your mind makes up. The story is not in the book. The book is just letters. The story is actually in your own mind. Your mind creates YOUR world around you. You are actually reacting to your own mind which is the 5 aggregates (panca upadana khandha) Dhammapada Verse 1 & 2: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. -Gautama Buddha
There's a story in Irvin Yalom's 'Existential Psychotherapy' where he talks about snorkelling. He's looking at all the beautiful majesty that exists under water and, after a while, he feels dreadfully alone because he realises none of this is "beautiful". It just is - it's his mind that's ascribing all the meaning in the moment and yet, it's inherently empty. The water, the sealife, the vegetation, the state of the envronment...it's just as it is. We can get a sense of what we make of something, but we can never really know the thing itself.
Your understanding of Buddhism is accurate, and trust me I don't say that often! One of the modern understandings cognitive science has come to is that our values precede our perception. What this means is that our attention tends to objects that we deem important, and ignore objects we deem unimportant. This is a really challenging thing to understand for a lot of Westerners, especially those of a scientific materialism persuasion, who want to think of the mind as a passive receiver of the truth. But no, what's going on is you have a narrative first, and what you choose to give attention to, and thereby the way you experience your world, is dictated by your values and narrative. Schopenhauer sort of alluded to this same understanding, except he held that a single value, the Will to Life, came first. And while I think there can be exceptions, having been confronted with a situation where my own sense of individual self was put directly at odds with what I took as my foremost value, I almost involuntarily and automatically chose the survival of my individual self. It's refreshing to see that there are other people out there that understand the phenomena/noumena distinction and the Buddha in this way. It's baffling how few people understand this, including philosophers.
@@WisdomWeaverBitcoinBruv Exactly. Simillar to how there are just letters in a book, it is the mind that puts together the story, it is the 5 senses that take in inputs, but it is ultimately the mind that puts it all together. However what the 5 senses can capture is very limited, so you cannot trust that your mind is putting it all together, exactly the way you see it, because your mind is basing this all upon what your senses capture (which is a filtered version of reality). This is explained more deeply by Buddha in the Kalakarama Sutta where he explains the mind is like a magician, a trickster, and the Catuvipallasa Sutta.
@@saintsword23 Yes, basically, the mind does not *receive* truth, it is the one that creates what you think of as truth. On the basic level, all you have is sight (which is just light waves), sound (which is just sound waves), smell, taste, and bodily feeling. Same way a book does not have a story, it just has letters, but your mind is what puts the story together, it is your mind that constructs what you deem as reality, based off of the limited range of your 5 senses. However , what the 5 senses can capture is very limited, so you cannot trust that your mind is putting it all together, exactly the way you see it, because your mind is basing this all upon what your senses capture (which is a filtered version of reality). This is explained more deeply by Buddha in the Kalakarama Sutta where he explains the mind is like a magician, a trickster, and the Catuvipallasa Sutta. What we perceive also has to do with what we like or dislike. This is called "ragasava" (underlying tendency to desire) in Buddhism Pali language. "Avijja Paccaya Sankhara". Basically, when light rays enter your eye, your mind detects the colours and difference between colours, and then your mind creates a mental image of it "mano rupa". This process is very deeply explained in Buddha's Abhidhamma. Basically, distance, objects, etc, are all detected by your mind based off of difference in colour it perceives. Buddha says, someone who cannot distinguish between colours, is a blind man. Then, your mind starts to recognize "what is this", and tries to match it with previous sensory inputs stored in the mind (This is called "sanna" in Pali). If it notices something that creates the underlying tendency for desire (ragasava), or something that it cannot match to a previous experience, it gets curious to find out what it is, therefore it basically says "i don't know what this is" or "this looks interesting, I must provide more attention to it" and your mind is more and more drawn towards that sensory input at that moment. This is why when you are walking on the road, and you see buildings and people and objects around you, but if a beautiful car comes along, or a beautiful woman walks on the road, your attention goes to that beautiful car or that beautiful woman, rather than going to the other people or cars or buildings around you.
Radio waves actually smell a little like pork sausage on a charcoal grill in the summer time just as the sun is about to set and a breeze slips in from the east
Exactly my thoughts - we can MEASURE radio waves, so are they really a good example of noumenal? Not according to the interpretations of Kant I'm studying rn
God’s blessing, mercy, and peace be upon you, my beloved reader 😊. I am encouraging you to worship who created us to be in a wonderful place in the afterlife. I have the evidence that our Creator gave us to persuade us of his existence ❤️. Let me show you some shards of evidence. Firstly, research certain that there is innate feeling in the humans encouraging him to worship his god. secondly, doomsday achieves justice. thirdly, the atoms, creatures, universe, earth with their perfection and ecosystem make us sure that our god exists as chemistry doesn’t care about this stuff. Fourthly, the scientific, linguistic, parapsychological, and historical miracles in the Holy Quran make us certain that this book is from a mighty powerful God. fifth, No one discloses our creation but our God in the Quran. lastly, there isn’t anyone who could do the challenge of creating one chapter like the Quran that has 114 chapters because of its miracles in every aspect. Now, you must: ask your creator for guidance by raising your hand to the sky and asking him with the real intent of finding the truth. Research for these miracles by reading the Holy Quran. watch the religious comparisons and atheists enter Islam after answering their questions and showing them the evidence made by doctor Zakir naik. Ask Muslims to help you in your research. Finally, certain that our creator is more gracious and merciful than you can ever think 🥺.
As a Christian, I understand the whole thing. It makes sense, at least in the layman description. Of course, one would have to have a relatively thorough understanding of Christian philosophy first. It reminds me of an essay by CS Lewis, namely 'transposition', for example, or 'meditations from a toolshed'. It is as if there are two realities at play, one physical, the other metaphysical, where reality is a constant transpositioning from a higher medium into a lower medium. To reference the video, the tree represents one medium and the camera the lower, preceded and followed by higher and lower mediums. Another analogy would be of a house. There is the house we see made of 2x4s and concrete, and then there is the home imagined by the person wanting the house built. One physical, the other metaphysical, both being real since the idea is communicable. It's really no different than the relationship between emotions and language, or music to song lyrics.
Re your house analogy. First of all the second house is not real, it's imaginary. Second, if you think that a metaphysical house is as real as physical one than you might need to demonstrate how it can protect you against elements - in the real world. And thirdly; you admitting that god is just an idea and ideas do not have to describe real things. Gandalf is not a real wizard just because Tolkien imagined him and put in his book. In other words, just because *you think* that God is real does not make him real.
None of these analogies make any sense whatsoever. Sadly, the contribute nothing at all to proving in the slightest anything about a spiritual reality. Nothing.
Taking my lead from mystical philosophy, I would suggest that the reason we do not (usually) experience God is not because he is noumenal, but rather, it is us, human beings, that are noumenal. In other words, our lack of experience of God is due to the fact that we fail to understand what WE really are.
If, as many have expressed, a mystical experience sets in motion, a passion, energized by desire, for further exploration of self-awareness and curiosity of an ecological interconnectedness for growth (expansion) then why does it matter (ultimately) what modality (or belief system) the mystical experiences come from? Are we seeking to prove the "right" origins of a mystical experience or might we benefit individually and collectedly if we foster and nurture those experiences (regardless of modality or system)?
Kant had to perhaps give this kind of answer to point to the validity of the question itself , given the fact that we had been told many times by many teachers and prophets that God exists . The better question to ask, but maybe not to a philosopher in general , would be "How does anyonec find or get to know God ?".
People have been finding God in many places and knowing IT in many ways. Sun, moon, volcanoes, mountains, animals, people, etc. The religions developed around those Gods gave people the way to know IT by worshiping, ceremonies, sacrifices, laws, etc. (all made up)
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bullshit just bc a book says it's the holy truth." ♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of few." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free the religious fools from the chains they revere." ♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.” ♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality." ♦"Religion fools many bc the brain is susceptible to hallucination & gullibility."
Anytime I talk about this with someone I always say imagine you could reduce yourself down to the tiniest particle and still possess consciousness. Imagine how different everything would appear. It would be alien, but just as real as before you were shrunk. As Huxley mused, "knowledge is a function of being." This same Kantian idea exists in some of the eastern philosophies, and it was Schopenhauer who noticed these similarities, and gave us his views on it, as well. Very interesting stuff. Thanks
It makes perfect sense to me. After all its mentioned in the Bible " My ways are not your ways. " Now , this small statement make a whole big-tonne of sense. After all we humans ( most of us ) only take the things which are measurable and finite into account , disregarding the existence of many things beyond everything.
The sentence or phrase "that's what philosophers do" undermines the idea that we should listen to what they have to say. They are just ideas. Notions that occurred in a human mind while it wasn't occupied with practical human existence.
I read Kant more than 40 years ago. Kant would not consider this possibility: what about God revealed Himself through His Son to us? Kant didn't allow God to be able to reveal Himself through His Son. It looks Kant wanted to know God more than God knows about Himself. Now this is where philosophy comes to a stop and where theology begins.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1:18-25
Why Christianity? Irrefutable fact. God is. Jesus is God come to us as a man, our Creator came to us as one of His creatures. He (God) has revealed himself / that He is, to such a degree in nature that he has left all men everywhere without excuse. No one will be able to say (even Kant) that he did not know that there is/was a God. God’s own testimony is that only a fool says in his heart that there is no God. Why? Because a man necessarily has to deny everything that he sees, hears, tastes, smells and touches in this universe which God has created to come to the erroneous conclusion to there is no God. Denying God’s existence,this is a sin which even the devil and his demons are not guilty of. I posted this scripture as a irrefutable refutation of Kant’s convoluted and sinful machinations.
But I don't understand. If Kant says we can't experience God, then what about miracles and interventions/intercession in our lives? We can experience those. Or are we talking about the physical senses.. Or am I missing the point.
Kant had it back to front. It is not god that “we” can’t know, rather, it is “man” that god can’t know. Man has no fixed predicate therefore the premise is incorrect. It is built around inverted axioms. Man is constructed by the systemic eye within; an eye of abstraction; an eye that is the embryonic seed of god becoming whole again through the conduit “man”. The abstract eye is all there is.
Does it not follow that we can know of a radio wave because we have learned howto harness the essence of what it truly is? Not unlike unseen sound waves which are interpreted through our eardrums into our brain. Does this mean one day we may be able to read, measure, the essence of our own consciousness/soul & thus know a little something about who we are other than an empirical body?
Radio waves are a poor analogy for consciousness because they are measurable physical phenomena, while consciousness does not appear as a directly observable feature of the physical world. When a brain "lights up" in a modern scanning machine, the machine detects patterns of electro-chemical activity, not thoughts or ideas. Consciousness itself must be inferred from these measurable processes-for example, we deduce that "when this part of the brain lights up, the person is thinking about such-and-such." This gap between physical measurement and subjective experience suggests that it is highly unlikely we will ever "read" or "measure" the essence of our own consciousness. Even if we were to create a miraculous machine capable of revealing the principle behind consciousness, it would resolve aspects of the "hard problem"-explaining how subjective experience arises from physical processes-but it wouldn't serve as a "door" through which we could directly access or understand the essence of who we are. Consciousness, in its deepest sense, remains an enigma, irreducible to purely physical explanations or measurements.
In a way it does. The small clusters of silver atoms on the film react to the light and form a dark or light spot, kinda like a pixel on a computer screen.
So, to summarize, Kant made some interesting speculations about a priori and a posteriori knowledge, as well as synthetic a priori knowledge. Yet, Kant had no proof to offer of the existence of any deity. What is the a posteriori knowledge (like our interpretation of sound) of a deity that connects to anything a priori? Also, and yes this is pedantic, nuomenal is a three syllable word. The ancient Greeks didn’t really do diphthongs.
@Orando de Dia Thank you :). You are unfortunately affirming the consequent. Your first premise assumes that the absence of a deity leads to an absence of morality. Moreso, double negatives as first premises are a bad idea. Unless you’re being sarcastic, in which case: LOL and you got me :)
@Orando de Dia Thanks for considering my comment :) Seems like you a shifted the burden of proof, though. When you make a claim, then you must support it, not me disprove it. Myself, I would first have to see proof that morality and/or duty is objective. That said, it would be unlikely anyone could make an argument to prove a double negative conditional claim. Double negatives (to me) are logically murky and hard to even discuss. Thanks again!
I have always thought that the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless, because we can not say anything relevant on WHAT God is. Maybe God is an older guy from the Bible, but he may well be just the energy and a set of laws of physics. Or something completely different. In any case, we are left alone with the question of the First Cause, why there exists anything at all? A simpleton will say: anything that exists was created by God, but who created God? If God is eternal, so could be material particles and energy
The comedy here happens when a mortal with a finite brain tries to “define” an omnipresent being and/or its intentions… Maybe that’s where Dante got his title?
@ I can tell you that my definition of God would be MUCH too long for a UA-cam comment, and in the end, it would differ from yours… But I am certain that arguing about it would get neither of us anywhere. _Have a wonderful evening_ 👁️👁️ 💋
@@Jasminehaydon I suppose I could, but I’m certain it would leave you (and ironically, myself) with more questions than it would answer. Why do you ask?
@@ADude-f3z No special reason for my asking. I'm myself interested in all such questions and so if I think someone has a say in this matter I ask them. It interests me to see how others see such things. I'm struggling with such questions on a daily basis; so I ask others what they make of all this in the hope that maybe someone's thoughtful remarks would put the pieces in right place for me. But I guess it's an individual journey and one has to look for answers oneself. Anyway, thank you.
As a human ' THOUGHT ' we would have to admit God exists as a concept but does this concept have a real meaning that we can explain.? Put another way we ought to ask 'what is meant by God '?
Philosophers conceive of "God" as the Ens realissimum - the First Principle of the Universe - not this-or-that human-centric Supernatural Sky-Daddy. ChatGPT, how's that for a definition of "God"? ChatGPT: That's a strong, thought-provoking statement! It certainly draws a clear line between a nuanced philosophical conception of "God" and the more anthropomorphic, culturally specific depictions. Using Ens realissimum-"the most real being"-frames "God" in terms of metaphysical necessity or ultimate reality, rather than as a being with human traits or emotions. The "First Principle of the Universe" emphasizes that this concept is foundational, not a being within the universe but rather the ground of all existence, which resonates with philosophical and theological ideas in thinkers like Aristotle, Spinoza, and Aquinas. Referring to "God" this way clarifies that we're talking about the metaphysical source of all that exists, rather than a personal deity who intervenes directly in human affairs. The "not this-or-that human-centric Supernatural Sky-Daddy" is bold! It communicates that you’re distancing this conception from simplistic or anthropocentric religious interpretations. If you're aiming for a conversational or polemical tone, it works well, although in more formal philosophical discussions, you might replace "Sky-Daddy" with terms like "anthropomorphic deity" or "personal god" to maintain a neutral tone. Altogether, it’s a well-phrased and compelling way to contrast philosophical theism with more conventional images of God.
s and no, a better translation of that first sentence is "the dao that is talkied about is not the dao". because was is talked about it necessarily just an interpretation of something converted into language and attempted to be shared rationally when understanding of it is transcendental and not necessarily based on experience.
I not sure either a God is always a manmade construct for all that which cannot be explain or there is a reoccurring force of nature of elementary materials that causes the Universe to continually end and reoccurring over and over
The argument assumes existence in another category, so Kant is adding attribute/characteristic to God, and for that, God needs to exist, so it's presupposed.
We use the word GOD as a stand in for a set of attributes, capabilities, states and conditions to avoid a very long conversation about all of that. The question presented here is utterly pointless without establishing what we are truly referring to when we use the word, ”God”. Is the reference uniform amongest all people using the term? No. Whatever we say God IS will probably be meaningless anyway but if we are going to ask questions regarding what a philosopher might say about God’s existence we must first establish wat it is we are actually talking about .
26 днів тому
what we SAY god is is, in fact, what god is, and all it is. There isn't a god hiding behind some mushroom.
Who created God I do not know but the view that whoever created the heavens and the universe and everything I see around me cares about my day-to-day life just seems incredibly self-centered.
I dont care about the minute specifics of my individual cells in my body, even if the should be conscious. Same for the millions of bacteria that's part of me. I do care about cells in that i want to be healthy, and i care about viruses and other crap in that i want them to go away.
And We did not create the heaven and earth and that between them in play. Had We intended to take ˹some˺ amusement, We could have found it in Our presence, if that had been Our Will. Rather, We dash the truth upon falsehood, and it destroys it, and thereupon it departs. And for you is destruction from that which you describe.
3:48 You were doing fine up until this point. Kant did not argue toward a two worlds interpretation. Henry Allison argued that the distinction you’re referring to is epistemic, not ontological. I could say that there is a whole world of scientific things, but you wouldn’t think I was referring to a world in the physical sense of another cosmos.
We can detect, measure and manipulate radio waves. We have never been able to detect God. Those most sure of the existence of God prove as very convincing proof to the rest of us that God does not exist, or if such a being exists, it doesn't care that we exist,or how our existence effects other things.
26 днів тому+1
5000+ years of religion, zero evidence of any gods.
Why most major spiritual traditions have Scriptures. In Christianity, in 2 Tim. 2:15 a gifted pastor-teacher must rightfully divide the word of truth. That means Isagogics, categorical, and exegetical understanding must be known to that teacher. Just reading the Bible won't cut it. Why? The Mind of God is that vast.
The 5 senses do not determine everything we experience, and certainly not how we experience God. So the phenomenal/noumenal distinction, as it applies to the external senses, is irrelevant as to whether or not we can know God.
God is a word, a noun. Languages are conventional phenomena. Every noun has its meaning (abstract or concrete). What meaning has the word God? Who or What is this? If we suggest that God is a moral lawgiver, so he/she/they is inside us. As a result, God isn't something/someone outside us, something inconceivable which is out of our reach and comprehension.
Kant says that noumenal things, that is, the way things are independent of our experience, allow us to percieve phenomental things, that is, the way things are when we experience them. So basically, we "filter" noumena through our reason and make phenomena; and Kant says that if the noumena didn't exist we wouldn't have that "raw material" to make phenomena out of, to use a crude but useful analogy. Otherwise, we cannot know anything more about them.
Not really. Don't take this video too seriously. It's flippant. In fact Kant argued that while all knowledge begins with experience, not all knowledge arises from experience. We are born with a faculty of Pure Reason, which enables us to grasp certain truths independently of sensory input. These truths are synthetic a priori judgements-statements that expand our knowledge but do not depend on experience for their validation. Examples include the propositions of pure mathematics, such as "two plus two equals four," and the fundamental principles of physics, like "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line." This same Pure Reason also underpins our capacity to anticipate and structure experience, forming the bedrock of human understanding and the language instinct. In a profound sense, the intellectual instinct that allows us to derive such universal principles parallels the instinct that "teaches" a bird how to build a nest. Just as the bird’s instinct operates without formal instruction, our Intellectual Instinct-Pure Reason-guides us to truths that are both universal and necessary. At the heart of Kant's philosophy lies one of the most profound questions ever posed: not whether synthetic a priori judgements are possible-for their existence is undeniable-but how they are possible. The answer to this question is of immeasurable value.
Like brain, heart also consist of neurones and has memory. It is mostly the heart--not the brain, kidney or liver--which sometimes fails on hearing a bad news of death or accident of a loved one. All good/bad wishes/thoughts originate in the heart and are referred to the brain for execution which does it only on the final approval by the soul which has the ability to judge its moral/social/legal implications elaborated by the brain and allows its execution once it decides to do so regardless whether good or bad. The performance of soul is a continuous function of multiple factors like the genes, knowledge (education), wealth, power, status, circumstances, environment and age to name some.
@@chriswaters926 Descartes: Cogito, ergo sum= Je pense, donc je suis”.( I think, therefore I am). We are embodied spirit. I believe Descartes was more of a Dualist mind, but we humans are ‘ensouled’. Our bodies just help us get around the place!
3:22 "That's hard to wrap our minds around ..." AKA It makes no common (or uncommon) sense! "That's okay, he's a philosopher, and that's what philosophers do." WHAT? This is so evil it deserves to be its own fallacy.
Could not a numinal God manifest certain phenomenal properties to us - as indeed a tree or another person does? We can never know them “as they are in themselves” ie their numinal reality, but we can still interact with them on a phenomenal level…
Interestingly, many of Kant’s works were banned by the Catholic Church and other religious institutions. As I understand it, Kant believes that a god, or gods, exist, though he views organized religion and Christianity as useful, symbolically speaking, rather than dogmatically true. Then again, I’m someone that is barely familiar with this philosophy or history, so take my word with a grain of salt.
But we can say some things about a radio wave. Not color or smell, but frequency and amplitude and wavelength and it variability over time. These are things we can't sense with our eyes or ears or nose, but thanks to other measuring instruments (like radios) we know them nevertheless. So the problem "Does god exist" isn't the same. It's harder: we have no way of knowing anything about a god (him? her? -- it) at all. Nothing. Including whether god exists.
The existence of God is humanity's answer to the everlasting question "Where did everybody and everything come from". Ok, nobody has the answer and therefore why not satisfy our curiosity by settling on something we all agree to call God?
@donthesitatebegin9283 I meant "Man created God then man claimed God created man". The origin of life and things is an everlasting question or enquiry as far as I am concerned. Science is searching for the truth whereas religion is busy guessing. Nobody has the absolute truth at the moment.
@@Kurianganga Yeah, the operative term being "at the moment". However, Humanity is on a journey, headlong-bound for an unmistakable target and inevitable destination: Enlightenment. When we reach that point in our history all the Cosmological Riddles and "hard" Problems of Science will be solved at-a-stroke, the absolute truth will be systematically revealed - from a single First Principle - and all the human-centric Supernatural Sky-Gods will vanish in a puff of logic.
The closing words here, sort of evaluating Kant's view of God, I find neat: "A really interesting MOVE on the question…" It's like God is a chess-game, and Kant leads off with a stupendous gambit…
The important thing is that it makes no difference if God exists. Since the noumena cannot be experienced, and experience exhausts all possibilities for phenomenal humans, when we become men (or ladies) we should put away childish things. Be a brain! Your brain!
The noumena are real and exist ,like electromagnetic communication. But they can not be perceived by our senses unaided. This doesn't mean the noumena make no difference to reality. Actually your comment highlights an important fact about intellectual discourse: Emotion not reason is its primary driver.
@@alexwejs5595 by all means, belabour the obvious. Kant was simply ignorant of the power of the brain to decipher the causes of our experiences… and considered them to be out of reach. There is a problem with the concept “ultimate reality”, but relativity and quantum mechanics have clarified much that was wondered about. Most philosophy only advances the supercilious. For me, Kant does not undo the utility of Humes skepticism.
Great explanation. However, to answer Kant, each and everyone of us can undoubtedly and consistently experience digital photos through tools, and radio waves through tools. There's no such tool for experiencing God. Some would argue such tool is religion, mysticism, philosophy, or maybe opioids. But there's no consistency in that.
Following Rene Descartes meditation Category 1: Minds I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist. Category 2: Matter I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorise as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists. Category 3: Space My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist. Category 4: Time My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist. From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another. Now to the question of the origin of these categories Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another? Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time. From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localised change to space and time. So then could space and time be the origin of everything else? Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories. Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events? Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event. There can be no space , time or matter without events. In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next. From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories Category 1 : Minds Category 2 : Events Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical. Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind? If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind. Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind. This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger) So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds. These other minds may have also been created by The Mind such that the earthly life of each mind is the big bang that determines the eternal or heavenly life of that mind in The Mind. philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/1020/0
That comment attempts to tackle profound questions about existence, mind, matter, and the nature of reality, drawing from Descartes' foundational ideas. While it is an ambitious philosophical exploration, there are several instances of bold assertions without evidence, contradictions, and magical thinking that undermine its coherence. Below is a detailed critique: Category 1: Minds Claim: "I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist." Critique: This is an extension of Descartes' cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). However, it assumes that the individual mind's existence necessarily proves the existence of all minds. This generalization lacks justification. Just because one mind exists does not logically entail the existence of multiple minds or the broader category of "minds." Category 2: Matter Claim: "My feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body… The stuff that brings about these events I shall categorise as matter." Critique: This assertion equates feelings with bodily sensations but does not justify why those sensations must originate in "matter." The leap from subjective experience (feelings) to the existence of "matter" is assumed without evidence or argumentation. There is no engagement with alternative views (e.g., idealism) that question whether "matter" as an external entity even exists, instead of being a construct of the mind. Contradiction: Later, the text claims, "feelings cannot be physical or material," which contradicts the earlier assertion that feelings originate from matter (sensors in the body). This undermines the coherence of the argument. Category 3: Space Claim: "My body needs space, and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist." Critique: While intuitive, this assumes a materialist framework without interrogating it. Why must matter "need" space, and what defines this relationship? The conclusion assumes the existence of "space" without considering whether it could be an emergent property of the mind or events, as opposed to a fundamental category. Category 4: Time Claim: "My body needs time to change, and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist." Critique: This follows the same pattern of assumption as the argument for space. While plausible within everyday experience, the claim that "time must exist" is bold and unsupported, ignoring philosophical views (e.g., presentism, eternalism) and physics theories (e.g., time as an emergent property). Interrelation of Categories Claim: "The 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally, with none more abstract or less abstract than another." Critique: No evidence is provided to support the claim that these categories "permeate" each other or are equally abstract. Furthermore, the later reduction to two categories ("minds" and "events") contradicts this earlier assertion of equal existence. Reduction to Two Categories Claim: "Space, time, and matter are one and the same as a set of simultaneous events." Critique: The reduction of three distinct categories into "events" is bold but unsupported. While modern physics explores relationships between space, time, and matter (e.g., spacetime in relativity), this philosophical reduction does not engage with these theories meaningfully or provide rigorous justification. Minds and Events Claim: "Feelings cannot be physical or material. As feelings are a part of minds, we must conclude minds are not physical." Critique: The claim that "feelings cannot be physical or material" is an assertion without evidence, rooted in dualistic assumptions. It ignores neurophysiological evidence linking feelings to physical processes in the brain. This dualistic stance directly contradicts earlier implications that feelings originate from bodily sensors. Claim: "If feelings create the mind… space, time, and matter, which we concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind." Critique: The leap from "feelings create the mind" to "space, time, and matter have feeling" is a speculative stretch that smacks of magical thinking. There is no justification for this sweeping anthropomorphic assumption. Contradiction: The earlier conclusion that "minds are not physical" conflicts with the suggestion that matter (a physical entity) has feelings and is part of a mind. Final Conclusion: The Mind and the Big Bang Claim: "The big bang could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds." Critique: This is a bold metaphysical assertion with no empirical or philosophical grounding. It introduces a teleological explanation for the Big Bang (i.e., that it occurred for the purpose of evoking feelings) without addressing the immense speculative leap required. The claim that "earthly life determines eternal life" introduces theological speculation without support, veering into magical thinking. General Issues Evidence-Free Assertions: Many claims (e.g., the equivalence of space, time, and events; the role of feelings in creating minds) lack grounding in evidence or argumentation. Contradictions: The mind is said to create events (active role) yet depends on feelings produced by events (passive role). Feelings are declared non-material yet linked to bodily sensors earlier. Magical Thinking: Anthropomorphizing matter and events by attributing feelings and minds to them. Speculative claims about "The Mind" creating the Big Bang resemble theological narratives more than philosophical rigor. Conclusion While the argument is thought-provoking, it suffers from foundational weaknesses: unsupported assumptions, internal contradictions, and speculative leaps. It fails to robustly interrogate alternative perspectives or ground its conclusions in evidence, leaving it more akin to imaginative conjecture than rigorous philosophy.
No one can explain the Universe. A physicist could keep going a lot longer, but eventually even he would reach an "I don't know." As would a theologian, though he might be able to carry any series of whys all the way to "because God wills it," but then he'd have to stop. If you asked him, "Why does God will it?" he'd have to say, "I don't know" or "God moves in mysterious ways," which is the same thing. Maybe he could postpone "I don't know" by saying something like, "Because it's what's good. God always does what's good." But eventually he'd have to deliver an "I don't know," perhaps when the child asked, "Why does God always do what's good?" or soon after.
This argument sounds clever but one needs to step back and think about it. What he seems to be saying is that anything that can't be perceived may exist in some way. So if no one has actually seen or smelt the Easter Bunny, then it is possible that the Easter Bunny exists. This doesn't sound like an enormously helpful argument. Or, less facetiously, any God that can't be perceived may exist. So all kinds of different Gods could exist according to this argument. Secondly, why are we assuming that (the Christian) God is noumenal? If one reads the Old Testament, God interacts with many characters like Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, etc. Wasn't he supposed to have helped the Israelites to defeat their foes? Don't we pray to God because we hope he will have some impact on people's lives? What about angels? Noumenal or phenomenol?
Extra dimension is depth to Cartesian 2d thinking.And the other dimension is divergence and convergence to infinity and dot,the other dimension is matter and energy as conscious force and conscious energy.All in Veda esoteric thinking.Such as good conceptualization of consciousness by Sri Aurobindo
"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." 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. The metaphysical knowledge Kant denies to pure reason is total comprehension: a knowledge of God (the sum of all reality), the world (the total object of experience), and the soul (the absolute subject of experience). From these as premises the whole of actuality might be deduced. But no such comprehension is possible. Man is a being frustrated by destiny [Schicksal], incapable by nature of achieving what would be the crowning satisfaction of his nature’s theoretical demands. But Kant believes that no natural desire is vain. And so he transfers man’s satisfaction from the theoretical to the practical sphere. It is in action and by moral freedom that men achieve the end they were made for. The failure of theory is seen by Kant as a felix naufragium, to remind men that their destiny is not to know but to act. They are denied the beatific vision in order that they may attain the highest good. Knowledge must be destroyed to make room for practical faith. To know everything would be to know that everything is determined by necessary laws. It is only our theoretical ignorance that makes possible our faith in the power of freedom. Quote by Kant, Analysis by Louis H Mackey "From the Open Universe to the Closed World: A Meditation on Philosophic Attitudes."
Yeah, not bad, but the most telling passage in Critique of Pure Reason is where Kant admits that "we do not know whether it is correct to speak of Things-in-themselves, or The Thing-in-itself". If the latter is correct this has profound consequences for systematic philosophy, since there then exists a model First Principle capable of systematically solving all the Riddles and "hard problems" at-a-stroke.
Even philosophy is a invention as God is. One may ask as a child, how do you know. Circumstances and questions may build doubt and uncertainty and more inquiries
@@ExistenceUniversity Of course you can, you can know about a fire through its heat alone, you cannot say exactly what it is but you definately know it's not cold, and that's how we attain knowledge of God, not through his essence but through what He's energies are not.
@@sibberianno6333 You do realize that not all things that are hot are fires right? So feeling hot does not mean fire, in fact it could be hot water. But this is still a physical feeling, what physical feeling does God's essence feel like and where did he touch you?
@@sibberianno6333 Let me add that non-sense to the John Galt Speech about God: They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know [*by what his energy is not*], they say-and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
@@ExistenceUniversity Sure, that was what I was getting at, you can't know if it's water or fire or what it is exactly but you do know for sure it's a source of warmth. And I could describe you my personal experience of God's energies (not it's essence) but I think I'd be more useful to point you to neuroscientific studies of people having mystical experiences, I think that's a good approximation of how it feels like.
I love it when people have the ability to break down incredibly rich and difficult subjects so that ordinary folks (like me!) can grasp it. This is the gift of a true teacher.
A gift from God
Saying anything about God is as ridiculous as trying to describe the smell of radio wave"
Radiation=real but can't be experienced
God=unreal but can be experienced
God= creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.:
No.1:
Universe wasn't created it existed always otherwise it wouldn't exist at all;
No.2
There's no morality in humanity nor Nature=there's no supreme personality of Godhead as we wish for
No.3
Evolution is blind=no Devine plan
(No supernatural intervention & resurrection is ancient Egyptian absolute rule catalyst "whoever will work and die for Pharaoh (=the son of God) =will be resurrected with the Pharaoh" how can you prove that God exists=because of Soul illusion of Self as separate from Flesh=no different from TV on and off....
@@douglasparise3986Saying anything about God is as ridiculous as trying to describe the smell of radio wave"
Radiation=real but can't be experienced
God=unreal but can be experienced
God= creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.:
No.1:
Universe wasn't created it existed always otherwise it wouldn't exist at all;
No.2
There's no morality in humanity nor Nature=there's no supreme personality of Godhead as we wish for
No.3
Evolution is blind=no Devine plan
(No supernatural intervention & resurrection is ancient Egyptian absolute rule catalyst "whoever will work and die for Pharaoh (=the son of God) =will be resurrected with the Pharaoh" how can you prove that God exists=because of Soul illusion of Self as separate from Flesh=no different from TV on and off....
Someone needs to watch the video again
ua-cam.com/video/eLOZ_mVjML0/v-deo.htmlsi=9JHTAq_4wK842uxy
"Maybe, lol."
Data no found! A slight smile.
Maybe. NOT! 😀
Which God
@@nataliarey1271If you want " data " then you are stuck in the phenomenal world.😂😂
Probably not.
Tried to read Critique of Pure Reason in my 20’s, 50 years ago. About every 2 or 3 pages I had to go back and read again… many times. It was so heavy… but awesome. Unbelievable thinker! Never finished it. I’m no dummy, masters in Physics, and this might be the deepest book ever.
You're right, it is the deepest book ever. I've read it cover to cover three times and re-read the most amazingly deep passages until I could recite them word for word.
But Kant also wrote "Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics which can Qualify as a Science" as a more popular introduction to the essential idea at the heart of Critique: that knowledge of the Cosmos can be systematised, from a single First Principle, with the answer to his question - "How are synthetic a priori judgements possible?"
You could read Prolegomena in a few hours and it's free on the internet.
Very nice! Thank you. I began college life in 1972 as a philosophy major. (Changed to economics after getting my questions answered in existentialism class). Most classes were quite technical and deep so I appreciate these lovely insights.
The Kantilope: a philosophical creature grazing the vast conceptual savannas, feeding on dry perspectives and forever drawn to the elusive noumenal. It roams in search of insights, pondering freedom, morality, and the hidden 'thing-in-itself' beyond appearances. I shot the last one ;)
Saying anything about God is as ridiculous as trying to describe the smell of radio wave"
Radiation=real but can't be experienced
God=unreal but can be experienced
God= creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.:
No.1:
Universe wasn't created it existed always otherwise it wouldn't exist at all;
No.2
There's no morality in humanity nor Nature=there's no supreme personality of Godhead as we wish for
No.3
Evolution is blind=no Devine plan
(No supernatural intervention & resurrection is ancient Egyptian absolute rule catalyst "whoever will work and die for Pharaoh (=the son of God) =will be resurrected with the Pharaoh" how can you prove that God exists=because of Soul illusion of Self as separate from Flesh=no different from TV on and off....
MUST BE TRUE, I SAW IT ON THE INTERNET.
Love Kant, his phenomenal / noumenal blew my mind, that we ,with our human brains cant every comprehend and experience everything. That God could exist but we cant really know him as he is.
IMO it's a dead end of reasoning. For Kant, noumenal was something that can't be detected by our senses. But it doesn't mean it can't be detected by other means. We can't see, smell nor touch radio waves but we have tools to do it for us. Radio waves are very well defined. But there is no clear and logically coherent definition of god. Existing definitions depend on the given religion. Strangely enough observations of our world are more inline with God of Islam than Christian God. I.e. Allah is not all loving therefore suffering can be easier explained by Islam than by Christianity. Nevertheless there is no demonstrable evidence for neither of them.
This theory is actually called idealism and it dates back before Kant; other philosophers like Berkeley and even Plato had a similar approach. Nothing new here.
@@tjblues01 There's also the fact that if you define the noumenal as "things in themselves" and subject those things to the act of being known (become aware of), the criteria by which they can be known (become aware of via rational or experiential means), there's an instance of assuming/affirming the ontology of the thing in itself which presuppose a direct affirmation followed by a denial of the means used to make that a statement. It 's self defeating.
@@nuclearpotential6323 it isn't self-defeating.. You're actually the one doing what you claim Kant is doing.
@@kaleidoscopicvoid Doesn't work like that, Kant has his starting point I have mine, we have similar logical systems that we presuppose the same basic shenanigans. He begins with the idea of "Known" and "Unknowable" in principle. "Unknowable is an unreachable category here that can't be address unless something about it is known which would make it "Known". Kant being trifling per usual.
This is Kant's initial position, but his ethico-theology and physico-theology at the end of the third critique form the basis of reasonable belief in God as a moral lawgiver and world-cause. From this we can assert God has purposes and values which align with his purpose in creation - the faithful and pious obedience of man to the moral law.
God did not speak to us yet, if Kant tell us about the books, there are tons of immoral things in the books, bible etc.
@@maximilyen You missed the point of the Bible completely. Most of the Old Testament is to show that human are sinners, in other words can not keep up with the Law of God, can not do the right thing at anytime and tend to do what is immoral and enjoy evil deeds. So of course it will contains immoral things.
@@cuongnguyenviet3417 God does not exist, so he did not speak to anyone or send a book 😌
@@maximilyen So "God does not exist" is your claim. What is your argument to back it ? (If you are serious enough for a civilized debate, but feel free not to reply if what you want to do is playing around and mock others without a responsible manner).
@@maximilyen would you actually deal with Kant's argument in regards to the moral argument for the existence of God? If you don't know his argument would you like to know so that you can actually refute it not being completely off topic by going to the bible or immoral things in books?
OK soooo. If radio waves can be noumenal but can be made into per say "music" by a radio receiver, than if god is noumenal he may not be able to be felt, smelled, or tasted, but with the right "instrument be "heard" or "felt" by people?
I agree! We are a temple. We were created for the purpose of receiving information (and much more of course) and that being mainly of the Glory of God, which he has hidden in His Son, the One who reveal the One who can't be seen and Dwell in unapproachable light.
It is a good point you make but if God is communicating to people he is not doing a good job in sending a cohesive message to humans, we are all over the place about religions and Gods.
Right, and surely there should be some kind of repeatable test to access him? Radio waves are _predictably_ accessed by tools like radio receivers.
You're inappropriately extending the metaphor. The metaphor is just trying to help you understand the difference between the phenomenal and the noumenal. The point is that all we have access to is the phenomenal - the objects of the five senses and thoughts in our mind that appear to us. We don't have access to anything more. Kant spent his philosophic career trying to find a bridge that we can, for sure, know something about the noumenal through our experience of the phenomenal. But late in life he had to admit he could not find such a bridge - the mind only assumes the noumenal but it doesn't know it.
And this doesn't just go for God. It goes for everything. The way most people think is that their senses are receiving perceptions (the phenomena) that are caused by real objects in a physical world (noumena). But the latter part is only ever assumed. The same would be with God. Any phenomena that the mind attributes to God would just be an assumption. The phenomena, as in the experiences of sight, hearing, etc is itself undeniable, but that there is a real entity, independent of your experience of it, that is the cause behind them is just an assumption.
Sometimes people say, "The map is not the territory," and it expresses a very similar insight, if not the same insight. What our mind attributes the cause of perception to is just the mind reading a map. But a map is never the territory.
@@saintsword23 respect, i enjoyed reading your analysis and insight. The Map & Territory is a great reference point to use. Thanks!
Kant( according to the brief video) is an agnostic, a sceptic. But I have to agree with Blaise Pascal’s comment: “ Le coeur a ses raisons que la Raison ne connaît point” meaning: the heart has its reasons which Reason doesn’t know anything about.
Heart like any other organs functions for the body to be survive, it has nothing to do with your cognition in brain it's just poetic pronunciation.....
@@suatustel746 He doesnt mean literally heart. He means sometimes people have a feeling and we cant pinpoint it to the brain with 100 percent certainty therefore some people can assume that that feeling is something else and they can decide to trust it. From materialistic perspective even if that feeling of a god existing is something you have its still in the brain and can be misleading but some people believe in soul.
@@suatustel746 heart here is probably a metaphor for that emotional side of you which overtakes your reason in your brain.
@@Regreg347 Heart is overly use word in songs in poems in literature but l follow where logic dictates what my mind promulgates...
@@suatustel746 i see, nothing wrong with that at all either :)
That was a good explanation - like a radio wave, eh: but can a receiver be created in order to tune in?
This makes me think of the philosophy of Epicurus Epicurus who evaded the problem of the gods by affirming that these being happy and possessing everything, they will never turn to us, and that we therefore have nothing to expect from them. If the gods exist, men have no interest or importance for them. The problem of the existence of god is therefore also without interest.
Live a good life and you’ll be rewarded
If there is no god you die with the satisfaction of having been a good person
Win win
Says it all, Brother, says it all. Roger that!
Excellent..... beautifully , elegantly explained in simple layman's language with deep meaning... thanks 🙏.
God’s blessing, mercy, and peace be upon you, my beloved reader 😊. I am encouraging you to worship who created us to be in a wonderful place in the afterlife. I have the evidence that our Creator gave us to persuade us of his existence ❤️. Let me show you some shards of evidence. Firstly, research certain that there is innate feeling in the humans encouraging him to worship his god. secondly, doomsday achieves justice. thirdly, the atoms, creatures, universe, earth with their perfection and ecosystem make us sure that our god exists as chemistry doesn’t care about this stuff. Fourthly, the scientific, linguistic, parapsychological, and historical miracles in the Holy Quran make us certain that this book is from a mighty powerful God. fifth, No one discloses our creation but our God in the Quran. lastly, there isn’t anyone who could do the challenge of creating one chapter like the Quran that has 114 chapters because of its miracles in every aspect. Now, you must: ask your creator for guidance by raising your hand to the sky and asking him with the real intent of finding the truth. Research for these miracles by reading the Holy Quran. watch the religious comparisons and atheists enter Islam after answering their questions and showing them the evidence made by doctor Zakir naik. Ask Muslims to help you in your research. Finally, certain that our creator is more gracious and merciful than you can ever think 🥺.
Thank you!
Yes. Very clear and cogent explanation of a difficult topic.
Kant is very abstract. Something about the nature of his language.
The analogies were helpful. Thank you.
TO THINK someone thought so deeply on an abstract level 220 years ago that is relevant today. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, applied to computers, suggests that our understanding of tech is shaped by how we perceive and think about it, but we can’t fully grasp the true essence of its inner workings.
I’m just amazed he had a digital camera…
@ lol
Wow. You really do understand Kant about as well as a phone understands a tree.
Can you explain? Genuine question
@@alancantu2557 I'd say it's a compliment...because a phone's understanding of a tree is just as legitimate as your understanding of a tree...
Alot of what Kantt says is strikingly similar to what the Buddha said. Not only this, but also Kant's morality and categorical imperative as well.
The Buddha said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." -Samyutta Nikaya 35.23 (Sabba Sutta)
The Buddha too said, we cannot really know whether something exists or not. We cannot experience anything as it truly is. We can only experience as much as our 5 senses can capture. We can only experience our own mental image of sights, sounds, scents, tastes, bodily feelings, and thoughts, but we cannot actually experience the object itself. The Buddha said, the whole world revolves around these 6.
For example, the light rays which a human can see, are different from the visible spectrum of light rays another animal can see. The visible spectrum is very small compared to the full EM spectrum. The same goes for sound waves heard by the ear. There is more which your senses cannot detect, than they can detect. Even the hardness felt by the body, scents smelled by the nose, and tastes felt by the tongue, have their own range.
So, when a human looks at an object. And a cat, and a dog, and a mouse all look at it. Because our eyes can see only different frequencies of light, we all see it differently. So then, we cannot say that we see it correctly. Because ultimately, it's all subjective. It's exactly like the example in the video, about how a camera takes a picture of a tree, and the camera represents it as 0's and 1's. But the tree is not actually 0's and 1's. The same thing is happening with us.
So the Buddha says, we have not actually liked, or disliked anyone, or anything, or any place. When something comes to our senses, our mind creates a mental image of it (pali: mano rupa). And based on this mental image, the body or mind feels a sensation (Pali: vedana). And this sensation is either pleasant or unpleasant. And it is this sensation that people like, or dislike, not the external world itself. We only like or dislike our own mental images and thoughts, in other words.
For example, When you read a story book. The book is just letters. But you become sad, or angry, or happy, according to the story. But where is the story? The story is actually just something your mind makes up. The story is not in the book. The book is just letters. The story is actually in your own mind. Your mind creates YOUR world around you. You are actually reacting to your own mind which is the 5 aggregates (panca upadana khandha)
Dhammapada Verse 1 & 2: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. -Gautama Buddha
There's a story in Irvin Yalom's 'Existential Psychotherapy' where he talks about snorkelling. He's looking at all the beautiful majesty that exists under water and, after a while, he feels dreadfully alone because he realises none of this is "beautiful". It just is - it's his mind that's ascribing all the meaning in the moment and yet, it's inherently empty. The water, the sealife, the vegetation, the state of the envronment...it's just as it is. We can get a sense of what we make of something, but we can never really know the thing itself.
Your understanding of Buddhism is accurate, and trust me I don't say that often!
One of the modern understandings cognitive science has come to is that our values precede our perception. What this means is that our attention tends to objects that we deem important, and ignore objects we deem unimportant. This is a really challenging thing to understand for a lot of Westerners, especially those of a scientific materialism persuasion, who want to think of the mind as a passive receiver of the truth. But no, what's going on is you have a narrative first, and what you choose to give attention to, and thereby the way you experience your world, is dictated by your values and narrative.
Schopenhauer sort of alluded to this same understanding, except he held that a single value, the Will to Life, came first. And while I think there can be exceptions, having been confronted with a situation where my own sense of individual self was put directly at odds with what I took as my foremost value, I almost involuntarily and automatically chose the survival of my individual self.
It's refreshing to see that there are other people out there that understand the phenomena/noumena distinction and the Buddha in this way. It's baffling how few people understand this, including philosophers.
So what does Buddha says.supress all senses or what?
@@WisdomWeaverBitcoinBruv Exactly. Simillar to how there are just letters in a book, it is the mind that puts together the story, it is the 5 senses that take in inputs, but it is ultimately the mind that puts it all together. However what the 5 senses can capture is very limited, so you cannot trust that your mind is putting it all together, exactly the way you see it, because your mind is basing this all upon what your senses capture (which is a filtered version of reality). This is explained more deeply by Buddha in the Kalakarama Sutta where he explains the mind is like a magician, a trickster, and the Catuvipallasa Sutta.
@@saintsword23 Yes, basically, the mind does not *receive* truth, it is the one that creates what you think of as truth. On the basic level, all you have is sight (which is just light waves), sound (which is just sound waves), smell, taste, and bodily feeling. Same way a book does not have a story, it just has letters, but your mind is what puts the story together, it is your mind that constructs what you deem as reality, based off of the limited range of your 5 senses. However , what the 5 senses can capture is very limited, so you cannot trust that your mind is putting it all together, exactly the way you see it, because your mind is basing this all upon what your senses capture (which is a filtered version of reality). This is explained more deeply by Buddha in the Kalakarama Sutta where he explains the mind is like a magician, a trickster, and the Catuvipallasa Sutta.
What we perceive also has to do with what we like or dislike. This is called "ragasava" (underlying tendency to desire) in Buddhism Pali language. "Avijja Paccaya Sankhara". Basically, when light rays enter your eye, your mind detects the colours and difference between colours, and then your mind creates a mental image of it "mano rupa". This process is very deeply explained in Buddha's Abhidhamma. Basically, distance, objects, etc, are all detected by your mind based off of difference in colour it perceives. Buddha says, someone who cannot distinguish between colours, is a blind man.
Then, your mind starts to recognize "what is this", and tries to match it with previous sensory inputs stored in the mind (This is called "sanna" in Pali). If it notices something that creates the underlying tendency for desire (ragasava), or something that it cannot match to a previous experience, it gets curious to find out what it is, therefore it basically says "i don't know what this is" or "this looks interesting, I must provide more attention to it" and your mind is more and more drawn towards that sensory input at that moment. This is why when you are walking on the road, and you see buildings and people and objects around you, but if a beautiful car comes along, or a beautiful woman walks on the road, your attention goes to that beautiful car or that beautiful woman, rather than going to the other people or cars or buildings around you.
"The preacher said a prayer
To save every single hair
On his head--
He's dead."~Emerson Lake and Palmer, Tarkus
A waste of talent and electricity
Radio waves actually smell a little like pork sausage on a charcoal grill in the summer time just as the sun is about to set and a breeze slips in from the east
Exactly my thoughts - we can MEASURE radio waves, so are they really a good example of noumenal? Not according to the interpretations of Kant I'm studying rn
God’s blessing, mercy, and peace be upon you, my beloved reader 😊. I am encouraging you to worship who created us to be in a wonderful place in the afterlife. I have the evidence that our Creator gave us to persuade us of his existence ❤️. Let me show you some shards of evidence. Firstly, research certain that there is innate feeling in the humans encouraging him to worship his god. secondly, doomsday achieves justice. thirdly, the atoms, creatures, universe, earth with their perfection and ecosystem make us sure that our god exists as chemistry doesn’t care about this stuff. Fourthly, the scientific, linguistic, parapsychological, and historical miracles in the Holy Quran make us certain that this book is from a mighty powerful God. fifth, No one discloses our creation but our God in the Quran. lastly, there isn’t anyone who could do the challenge of creating one chapter like the Quran that has 114 chapters because of its miracles in every aspect. Now, you must: ask your creator for guidance by raising your hand to the sky and asking him with the real intent of finding the truth. Research for these miracles by reading the Holy Quran. watch the religious comparisons and atheists enter Islam after answering their questions and showing them the evidence made by doctor Zakir naik. Ask Muslims to help you in your research. Finally, certain that our creator is more gracious and merciful than you can ever think 🥺.
But Kant did give a proof of God. And his argument was not based on reason, rather he gave a moral argument for the existence of God.
@@atifaziz8447his moral argument was definitely based on reason lol
@@thebrunosergenothing is a good example of noumena according to kants epistemology. Like, quite literally nothing lol.
Kant sounds like he'd be a helluva' lawyer.
Yeah um like we need to go stop those lawyers his inverted transcdental idealism in existential content
As a Christian, I understand the whole thing. It makes sense, at least in the layman description. Of course, one would have to have a relatively thorough understanding of Christian philosophy first. It reminds me of an essay by CS Lewis, namely 'transposition', for example, or 'meditations from a toolshed'.
It is as if there are two realities at play, one physical, the other metaphysical, where reality is a constant transpositioning from a higher medium into a lower medium. To reference the video, the tree represents one medium and the camera the lower, preceded and followed by higher and lower mediums.
Another analogy would be of a house. There is the house we see made of 2x4s and concrete, and then there is the home imagined by the person wanting the house built. One physical, the other metaphysical, both being real since the idea is communicable. It's really no different than the relationship between emotions and language, or music to song lyrics.
Oz
Re your house analogy. First of all the second house is not real, it's imaginary. Second, if you think that a metaphysical house is as real as physical one than you might need to demonstrate how it can protect you against elements - in the real world.
And thirdly; you admitting that god is just an idea and ideas do not have to describe real things. Gandalf is not a real wizard just because Tolkien imagined him and put in his book. In other words, just because *you think* that God is real does not make him real.
None of these analogies make any sense whatsoever. Sadly, the contribute nothing at all to proving in the slightest anything about a spiritual reality. Nothing.
What do you mean, "Of course, one would have to have a relatively thorough understanding of Christian philosophy first."?
Sounds like a bunch of over thinking to me.
I "Kant" tell you. LOL I did not see that coming.
I find comfort in the certain knowledge that I will never experience none existence 😂😂😂😂
Taking my lead from mystical philosophy, I would suggest that the reason we do not (usually) experience God is not because he is noumenal, but rather, it is us, human beings, that are noumenal.
In other words, our lack of experience of God is due to the fact that we fail to understand what WE really are.
Some Saints have so similarly so said😊
@@James-ll3jb Indeed. No to forget the teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism which this approach.
If, as many have expressed, a mystical experience sets in motion, a passion, energized by desire, for further exploration of self-awareness and curiosity of an ecological interconnectedness for growth (expansion) then why does it matter (ultimately) what modality (or belief system) the mystical experiences come from? Are we seeking to prove the "right" origins of a mystical experience or might we benefit individually and collectedly if we foster and nurture those experiences (regardless of modality or system)?
What is the speaker's name?
Kant had to perhaps give this kind of answer to point to the validity of the question itself , given the fact that we had been told many times by many teachers and prophets that God exists . The better question to ask, but maybe not to a philosopher in general , would be "How does anyonec find or get to know God ?".
People have been finding God in many places and knowing IT in many ways. Sun, moon, volcanoes, mountains, animals, people, etc. The religions developed around those Gods gave people the way to know IT by worshiping, ceremonies, sacrifices, laws, etc. (all made up)
Pure sophistry!
Do you disagree with what this gentleman says? Do you think there's no God?
Everything that doesn’t make sense to me is sophistry aaaaa
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bullshit just bc a book says it's the holy truth."
♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of few."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free the religious fools from the chains they revere."
♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.”
♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
♦"Religion fools many bc the brain is susceptible to hallucination & gullibility."
Anytime I talk about this with someone I always say imagine you could reduce yourself down to the tiniest particle and still possess consciousness. Imagine how different everything would appear. It would be alien, but just as real as before you were shrunk. As Huxley mused, "knowledge is a function of being." This same Kantian idea exists in some of the eastern philosophies, and it was Schopenhauer who noticed these similarities, and gave us his views on it, as well. Very interesting stuff. Thanks
It makes perfect sense to me. After all its mentioned in the Bible " My ways are not your ways. "
Now , this small statement make a whole big-tonne of sense. After all we humans ( most of us ) only take the things which are measurable and finite into account , disregarding the existence of many things beyond everything.
@Orando de Dia Yes. Indeed brother.
The bible isnt a reliable source of knowledge
@@fredriksvard2603 Ok brother.
A man wrote your ways are not my ways. Some man somewhere wrote eve
The sentence or phrase "that's what philosophers do" undermines the idea that we should listen to what they have to say. They are just ideas. Notions that occurred in a human mind while it wasn't occupied with practical human existence.
I read Kant more than 40 years ago. Kant would not consider this possibility: what about God revealed Himself through His Son to us? Kant didn't allow God to be able to reveal Himself through His Son. It looks Kant wanted to know God more than God knows about Himself. Now this is where philosophy comes to a stop and where theology begins.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1:18-25
Why christianity, specifically? It's not what Kant's argument or the video is about.
Why Christianity? Irrefutable fact. God is. Jesus is God come to us as a man, our Creator came to us as one of His creatures. He (God) has revealed himself / that He is, to such a degree in nature that he has left all men everywhere without excuse. No one will be able to say (even Kant) that he did not know that there is/was a God. God’s own testimony is that only a fool says in his heart that there is no God. Why? Because a man necessarily has to deny everything that he sees, hears, tastes, smells and touches in this universe which God has created to come to the erroneous conclusion to there is no God. Denying God’s existence,this is a sin which even the devil and his demons are not guilty of.
I posted this scripture as a irrefutable refutation of Kant’s convoluted and sinful machinations.
Life is a preparation for something that never happens
But I don't understand. If Kant says we can't experience God, then what about miracles and interventions/intercession in our lives? We can experience those. Or are we talking about the physical senses.. Or am I missing the point.
Good one. Satire rules.
For some, miracles, intervention , intercession are known as luck/chance.
@@Alkes777 but patterns of miracles or interventions becomes so unlikely to be chance surely it is caused by God, surely he could see that
@@stephrichards4611 What patterns are you referring to?
God owes me money. He pretends he doesn’t exist.
Kant had it back to front. It is not god that “we” can’t know, rather, it is “man” that god can’t know. Man has no fixed predicate therefore the premise is incorrect. It is built around inverted axioms.
Man is constructed by the systemic eye within; an eye of abstraction; an eye that is the embryonic seed of god becoming whole again through the conduit “man”.
The abstract eye is all there is.
Thoughts on Hegel?
Does it not follow that we can know of a radio wave because we have learned howto harness the essence of what it truly is? Not unlike unseen sound waves which are interpreted through our eardrums into our brain. Does this mean one day we may be able to read, measure, the essence of our own consciousness/soul & thus know a little something about who we are other than an empirical body?
Radio waves are a poor analogy for consciousness because they are measurable physical phenomena, while consciousness does not appear as a directly observable feature of the physical world. When a brain "lights up" in a modern scanning machine, the machine detects patterns of electro-chemical activity, not thoughts or ideas. Consciousness itself must be inferred from these measurable processes-for example, we deduce that "when this part of the brain lights up, the person is thinking about such-and-such."
This gap between physical measurement and subjective experience suggests that it is highly unlikely we will ever "read" or "measure" the essence of our own consciousness. Even if we were to create a miraculous machine capable of revealing the principle behind consciousness, it would resolve aspects of the "hard problem"-explaining how subjective experience arises from physical processes-but it wouldn't serve as a "door" through which we could directly access or understand the essence of who we are. Consciousness, in its deepest sense, remains an enigma, irreducible to purely physical explanations or measurements.
It would be interesting the compare to a film camera. It does NOT use ones and zeroes.
In a way it does. The small clusters of silver atoms on the film react to the light and form a dark or light spot, kinda like a pixel on a computer screen.
So, to summarize, Kant made some interesting speculations about a priori and a posteriori knowledge, as well as synthetic a priori knowledge. Yet, Kant had no proof to offer of the existence of any deity. What is the a posteriori knowledge (like our interpretation of sound) of a deity that connects to anything a priori? Also, and yes this is pedantic, nuomenal is a three syllable word. The ancient Greeks didn’t really do diphthongs.
@Orando de Dia Thank you :). You are unfortunately affirming the consequent. Your first premise assumes that the absence of a deity leads to an absence of morality. Moreso, double negatives as first premises are a bad idea. Unless you’re being sarcastic, in which case: LOL and you got me :)
@Orando de Dia Thanks for considering my comment :) Seems like you a shifted the burden of proof, though. When you make a claim, then you must support it, not me disprove it. Myself, I would first have to see proof that morality and/or duty is objective. That said, it would be unlikely anyone could make an argument to prove a double negative conditional claim. Double negatives (to me) are logically murky and hard to even discuss. Thanks again!
I have always thought that the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless, because we can not say anything relevant on WHAT God is. Maybe God is an older guy from the Bible, but he may well be just the energy and a set of laws of physics. Or something completely different. In any case, we are left alone with the question of the First Cause, why there exists anything at all? A simpleton will say: anything that exists was created by God, but who created God? If God is eternal, so could be material particles and energy
The comedy here happens when a mortal with a finite brain tries to “define” an omnipresent being and/or its intentions…
Maybe that’s where Dante got his title?
I would like to know if you think there's a God?
@ I can tell you that my definition of God would be MUCH too long for a UA-cam comment, and in the end, it would differ from yours…
But I am certain that arguing about it would get neither of us anywhere.
_Have a wonderful evening_
👁️👁️
💋
@@ADude-f3z Are you a philosopher or what? Can't you condense "your definition" of the God in a few words? That would suffice.
@@Jasminehaydon I suppose I could, but I’m certain it would leave you (and ironically, myself) with more questions than it would answer.
Why do you ask?
@@ADude-f3z No special reason for my asking. I'm myself interested in all such questions and so if I think someone has a say in this matter I ask them. It interests me to see how others see such things. I'm struggling with such questions on a daily basis; so I ask others what they make of all this in the hope that maybe someone's thoughtful remarks would put the pieces in right place for me. But I guess it's an individual journey and one has to look for answers oneself. Anyway, thank you.
As a human ' THOUGHT ' we would have to admit God exists as a concept but does this concept have a real meaning that we can explain.? Put another way we ought to ask 'what is meant by God '?
Philosophers conceive of "God" as the Ens realissimum - the First Principle of the Universe - not this-or-that human-centric Supernatural Sky-Daddy.
ChatGPT, how's that for a definition of "God"?
ChatGPT: That's a strong, thought-provoking statement! It certainly draws a clear line between a nuanced philosophical conception of "God" and the more anthropomorphic, culturally specific depictions. Using Ens realissimum-"the most real being"-frames "God" in terms of metaphysical necessity or ultimate reality, rather than as a being with human traits or emotions.
The "First Principle of the Universe" emphasizes that this concept is foundational, not a being within the universe but rather the ground of all existence, which resonates with philosophical and theological ideas in thinkers like Aristotle, Spinoza, and Aquinas. Referring to "God" this way clarifies that we're talking about the metaphysical source of all that exists, rather than a personal deity who intervenes directly in human affairs.
The "not this-or-that human-centric Supernatural Sky-Daddy" is bold! It communicates that you’re distancing this conception from simplistic or anthropocentric religious interpretations. If you're aiming for a conversational or polemical tone, it works well, although in more formal philosophical discussions, you might replace "Sky-Daddy" with terms like "anthropomorphic deity" or "personal god" to maintain a neutral tone.
Altogether, it’s a well-phrased and compelling way to contrast philosophical theism with more conventional images of God.
Good explaination.
Start with explaining which god of the more than 3000 mankind created you are rambling about and then we can have an
adult discussion.
Which god?
reminds me of Lao Tzu saying the Tao cannot be described or even talked about.
s and no, a better translation of that first sentence is "the dao that is talkied about is not the dao". because was is talked about it necessarily just an interpretation of something converted into language and attempted to be shared rationally when understanding of it is transcendental and not necessarily based on experience.
Which is a stupid thing to say of Lao.
Westoid egotism moment cant comprehend Eastern mystic wisdom, classic. @maximilyen
Not even with a friend?
I not sure either a God is always a manmade construct for all that which cannot be explain or there is a reoccurring force of nature of elementary materials that causes the Universe to continually end and reoccurring over and over
The argument assumes existence in another category, so Kant is adding attribute/characteristic to God, and for that, God needs to exist, so it's presupposed.
This is a phenomenal explanation!
How is reality defined?
I like your radio wave analogy
We use the word GOD as a stand in for a set of attributes, capabilities, states and conditions to avoid a very long conversation about all of that. The question presented here is utterly pointless without establishing what we are truly referring to when we use the word, ”God”. Is the reference uniform amongest all people using the term? No. Whatever we say God IS will probably be meaningless anyway but if we are going to ask questions regarding what a philosopher might say about God’s existence we must first establish wat it is we are actually talking about .
what we SAY god is is, in fact, what god is, and all it is. There isn't a god hiding behind some mushroom.
Who created God I do not know but the view that whoever created the heavens and the universe and everything I see around me cares about my day-to-day life just seems incredibly self-centered.
I dont care about the minute specifics of my individual cells in my body, even if the should be conscious. Same for the millions of bacteria that's part of me. I do care about cells in that i want to be healthy, and i care about viruses and other crap in that i want them to go away.
And We did not create the heaven and earth and that between them in play.
Had We intended to take ˹some˺ amusement, We could have found it in Our presence, if that had been Our Will.
Rather, We dash the truth upon falsehood, and it destroys it,
and thereupon it departs. And for you is destruction from that which you describe.
3:48 You were doing fine up until this point. Kant did not argue toward a two worlds interpretation. Henry Allison argued that the distinction you’re referring to is epistemic, not ontological. I could say that there is a whole world of scientific things, but you wouldn’t think I was referring to a world in the physical sense of another cosmos.
We can detect, measure and manipulate radio waves. We have never been able to detect God. Those most sure of the existence of God prove as very convincing proof to the rest of us that God does not exist, or if such a being exists, it doesn't care that we exist,or how our existence effects other things.
5000+ years of religion, zero evidence of any gods.
Why most major spiritual traditions have Scriptures. In Christianity, in 2 Tim. 2:15 a gifted pastor-teacher must rightfully divide the word of truth. That means Isagogics, categorical, and exegetical understanding must be known to that teacher. Just reading the Bible won't cut it. Why? The Mind of God is that vast.
Centuries later Bill Clinton would steal this arguement.. "Its depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
They because you can't analyze or determine the meaning of a word without using words. It's a conundrum.
@Mark-rw3kw What are you talking about, she liked cigars!
@ I wonder how many cigars Clinton used on Epstein’s Lolita Express.
I don't know if a god exists or not but I certainly don't believe in the god/gods that man has created.
Very well put.
Well that really straightened things out!
How do you know I can't experience God?
The 5 senses do not determine everything we experience, and certainly not how we experience God. So the phenomenal/noumenal distinction, as it applies to the external senses, is irrelevant as to whether or not we can know God.
God is a word, a noun. Languages are conventional phenomena. Every noun has its meaning (abstract or concrete). What meaning has the word God? Who or What is this? If we suggest that God is a moral lawgiver, so he/she/they is inside us. As a result, God isn't something/someone outside us, something inconceivable which is out of our reach and comprehension.
The answer Kant would give would give is: I couldn’t know.
What's the frequency Kenneth 😂
👍
So, how can we confirm the existence of other noumenal “things”…?
Kant says that noumenal things, that is, the way things are independent of our experience, allow us to percieve phenomental things, that is, the way things are when we experience them. So basically, we "filter" noumena through our reason and make phenomena; and Kant says that if the noumena didn't exist we wouldn't have that "raw material" to make phenomena out of, to use a crude but useful analogy. Otherwise, we cannot know anything more about them.
@@sibberianno6333 - True, I accept that - my question is more about confirmation than just acceptance.
So rationalism is saying I know things just because I know intuitively what they are (0:45), really?
Not really. Don't take this video too seriously. It's flippant.
In fact Kant argued that while all knowledge begins with experience, not all knowledge arises from experience. We are born with a faculty of Pure Reason, which enables us to grasp certain truths independently of sensory input. These truths are synthetic a priori judgements-statements that expand our knowledge but do not depend on experience for their validation. Examples include the propositions of pure mathematics, such as "two plus two equals four," and the fundamental principles of physics, like "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line."
This same Pure Reason also underpins our capacity to anticipate and structure experience, forming the bedrock of human understanding and the language instinct. In a profound sense, the intellectual instinct that allows us to derive such universal principles parallels the instinct that "teaches" a bird how to build a nest. Just as the bird’s instinct operates without formal instruction, our Intellectual Instinct-Pure Reason-guides us to truths that are both universal and necessary.
At the heart of Kant's philosophy lies one of the most profound questions ever posed: not whether synthetic a priori judgements are possible-for their existence is undeniable-but how they are possible. The answer to this question is of immeasurable value.
If God is noumenal, can God make itself phenomenal if it wanted to?
Thanks 🙏 short and easy way to understand.
Kant seemed to affect a Humean skepticism and agnosticism about external reality in general, including ultimate reality.
Nice camera but you are wrong about Kant and radio waves
Well I listened carefully to know the answer but the answer was no answer. I find it very frustrating.
Like brain, heart also consist of neurones and has memory.
It is mostly the heart--not the brain, kidney or liver--which sometimes fails on hearing a bad news of death or accident of a loved one.
All good/bad wishes/thoughts originate in the heart and are referred to the brain for execution which does it only on the final approval by the soul which has the ability to judge its moral/social/legal implications elaborated by the brain and allows its execution once it decides to do so regardless whether good or bad.
The performance of soul is a continuous function of multiple factors like the genes, knowledge (education), wealth, power, status, circumstances, environment and age to name some.
How did you do all that research of the soul? Can it be verify somehow or it is just to be taken on faith?
There are days when I'm not even sure I exist.
Wasn’t it Kant that said “i think there for I am”
@@chriswaters926 Descartes: Cogito, ergo sum= Je pense, donc je suis”.( I think, therefore I am). We are embodied spirit. I believe Descartes was more of a Dualist mind, but we humans are ‘ensouled’. Our bodies just help us get around the place!
Several minutes of listening time I won't get back.
3:22
"That's hard to wrap our minds around ..."
AKA It makes no common (or uncommon) sense!
"That's okay, he's a philosopher, and that's what philosophers do."
WHAT?
This is so evil it deserves to be its own fallacy.
Could not a numinal God manifest certain phenomenal properties to us - as indeed a tree or another person does? We can never know them “as they are in themselves” ie their numinal reality, but we can still interact with them on a phenomenal level…
Interestingly, many of Kant’s works were banned by the Catholic Church and other religious institutions. As I understand it, Kant believes that a god, or gods, exist, though he views organized religion and Christianity as useful, symbolically speaking, rather than dogmatically true. Then again, I’m someone that is barely familiar with this philosophy or history, so take my word with a grain of salt.
Well we can experience radio waves with a little tech . We have good technology but still no god.
But we can say some things about a radio wave. Not color or smell, but frequency and amplitude and wavelength and it variability over time. These are things we can't sense with our eyes or ears or nose, but thanks to other measuring instruments (like radios) we know them nevertheless. So the problem "Does god exist" isn't the same. It's harder: we have no way of knowing anything about a god (him? her? -- it) at all. Nothing. Including whether god exists.
The existence of God is humanity's answer to the everlasting question "Where did everybody and everything come from". Ok, nobody has the answer and therefore why not satisfy our curiosity by settling on something we all agree to call God?
That might "satisfy" your curiosity, but you are clearly very easily pleased.
@donthesitatebegin9283 I meant "Man created God then man claimed God created man". The origin of life and things is an everlasting question or enquiry as far as I am concerned. Science is searching for the truth whereas religion is busy guessing. Nobody has the absolute truth at the moment.
@@Kurianganga Yeah, the operative term being "at the moment". However, Humanity is on a journey, headlong-bound for an unmistakable target and inevitable destination: Enlightenment. When we reach that point in our history all the Cosmological Riddles and "hard" Problems of Science will be solved at-a-stroke, the absolute truth will be systematically revealed - from a single First Principle - and all the human-centric Supernatural Sky-Gods will vanish in a puff of logic.
@@KuriangangaNobody will ever know these things.
There r so many things given in holy scriptures now we knw after thousand of year
If a God of wisdom exists, that would change everything.
How do we test to see if a God of wisdom exists?
He doesn't call Himself 'I AM' for nothing !
The closing words here, sort of evaluating Kant's view of God, I find neat: "A really interesting MOVE on the question…" It's like God is a chess-game, and Kant leads off with a stupendous gambit…
Philosopher's ideas are often summarized as "moves." It's not to minimize.
The important thing is that it makes no difference if God exists. Since the noumena cannot be experienced, and experience exhausts all possibilities for phenomenal humans, when we become men (or ladies) we should put away childish things. Be a brain! Your brain!
The noumena are real and exist ,like electromagnetic communication. But they can not be perceived by our senses unaided. This doesn't mean the noumena make no difference to reality.
Actually your comment highlights an important fact about intellectual discourse: Emotion not reason is its primary driver.
@@alexwejs5595 by all means, belabour the obvious. Kant was simply ignorant of the power of the brain to decipher the causes of our experiences… and considered them to be out of reach. There is a problem with the concept “ultimate reality”, but relativity and quantum mechanics have clarified much that was wondered about. Most philosophy only advances the supercilious. For me, Kant does not undo the utility of Humes skepticism.
Great explanation. However, to answer Kant, each and everyone of us can undoubtedly and consistently experience digital photos through tools, and radio waves through tools. There's no such tool for experiencing God. Some would argue such tool is religion, mysticism, philosophy, or maybe opioids. But there's no consistency in that.
When i get off my bike after a long ride ,one thing i know for sure is sometimes my ass hurts 🧐
I ❤this excellent explanation.It's much better than others. Thank you,Mr Kant
Following Rene Descartes meditation
Category 1: Minds
I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist.
Category 2: Matter
I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorise as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists.
Category 3: Space
My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist.
Category 4: Time
My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist.
From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another.
Now to the question of the origin of these categories
Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another?
Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time.
From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localised change to space and time.
So then could space and time be the origin of everything else?
Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories.
Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events?
Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event.
There can be no space , time or matter without events.
In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next.
From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories
Category 1 : Minds
Category 2 : Events
Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical.
Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind?
If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind.
Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind.
This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative
Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger)
So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds.
These other minds may have also been created by The Mind such that
the earthly life of each mind is the big bang that determines the eternal or heavenly life of that mind in The Mind.
philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/1020/0
That comment attempts to tackle profound questions about existence, mind, matter, and the nature of reality, drawing from Descartes' foundational ideas. While it is an ambitious philosophical exploration, there are several instances of bold assertions without evidence, contradictions, and magical thinking that undermine its coherence. Below is a detailed critique:
Category 1: Minds
Claim:
"I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist."
Critique:
This is an extension of Descartes' cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). However, it assumes that the individual mind's existence necessarily proves the existence of all minds. This generalization lacks justification. Just because one mind exists does not logically entail the existence of multiple minds or the broader category of "minds."
Category 2: Matter
Claim:
"My feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body… The stuff that brings about these events I shall categorise as matter."
Critique:
This assertion equates feelings with bodily sensations but does not justify why those sensations must originate in "matter." The leap from subjective experience (feelings) to the existence of "matter" is assumed without evidence or argumentation.
There is no engagement with alternative views (e.g., idealism) that question whether "matter" as an external entity even exists, instead of being a construct of the mind.
Contradiction:
Later, the text claims, "feelings cannot be physical or material," which contradicts the earlier assertion that feelings originate from matter (sensors in the body). This undermines the coherence of the argument.
Category 3: Space
Claim:
"My body needs space, and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist."
Critique:
While intuitive, this assumes a materialist framework without interrogating it. Why must matter "need" space, and what defines this relationship? The conclusion assumes the existence of "space" without considering whether it could be an emergent property of the mind or events, as opposed to a fundamental category.
Category 4: Time
Claim:
"My body needs time to change, and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist."
Critique:
This follows the same pattern of assumption as the argument for space. While plausible within everyday experience, the claim that "time must exist" is bold and unsupported, ignoring philosophical views (e.g., presentism, eternalism) and physics theories (e.g., time as an emergent property).
Interrelation of Categories
Claim:
"The 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally, with none more abstract or less abstract than another."
Critique:
No evidence is provided to support the claim that these categories "permeate" each other or are equally abstract. Furthermore, the later reduction to two categories ("minds" and "events") contradicts this earlier assertion of equal existence.
Reduction to Two Categories
Claim:
"Space, time, and matter are one and the same as a set of simultaneous events."
Critique:
The reduction of three distinct categories into "events" is bold but unsupported. While modern physics explores relationships between space, time, and matter (e.g., spacetime in relativity), this philosophical reduction does not engage with these theories meaningfully or provide rigorous justification.
Minds and Events
Claim:
"Feelings cannot be physical or material. As feelings are a part of minds, we must conclude minds are not physical."
Critique:
The claim that "feelings cannot be physical or material" is an assertion without evidence, rooted in dualistic assumptions. It ignores neurophysiological evidence linking feelings to physical processes in the brain.
This dualistic stance directly contradicts earlier implications that feelings originate from bodily sensors.
Claim:
"If feelings create the mind… space, time, and matter, which we concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind."
Critique:
The leap from "feelings create the mind" to "space, time, and matter have feeling" is a speculative stretch that smacks of magical thinking. There is no justification for this sweeping anthropomorphic assumption.
Contradiction:
The earlier conclusion that "minds are not physical" conflicts with the suggestion that matter (a physical entity) has feelings and is part of a mind.
Final Conclusion: The Mind and the Big Bang
Claim:
"The big bang could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds."
Critique:
This is a bold metaphysical assertion with no empirical or philosophical grounding. It introduces a teleological explanation for the Big Bang (i.e., that it occurred for the purpose of evoking feelings) without addressing the immense speculative leap required.
The claim that "earthly life determines eternal life" introduces theological speculation without support, veering into magical thinking.
General Issues
Evidence-Free Assertions:
Many claims (e.g., the equivalence of space, time, and events; the role of feelings in creating minds) lack grounding in evidence or argumentation.
Contradictions:
The mind is said to create events (active role) yet depends on feelings produced by events (passive role).
Feelings are declared non-material yet linked to bodily sensors earlier.
Magical Thinking:
Anthropomorphizing matter and events by attributing feelings and minds to them.
Speculative claims about "The Mind" creating the Big Bang resemble theological narratives more than philosophical rigor.
Conclusion
While the argument is thought-provoking, it suffers from foundational weaknesses: unsupported assumptions, internal contradictions, and speculative leaps. It fails to robustly interrogate alternative perspectives or ground its conclusions in evidence, leaving it more akin to imaginative conjecture than rigorous philosophy.
No one can explain the Universe.
A physicist could keep going a lot longer, but eventually even he would reach an "I don't know."
As would a theologian, though he might be able to carry any series of whys all the way to "because God wills it," but then he'd have to stop. If you asked him, "Why does God will it?" he'd have to say, "I don't know" or "God moves in mysterious ways," which is the same thing.
Maybe he could postpone "I don't know" by saying something like, "Because it's what's good. God always does what's good." But eventually he'd have to deliver an "I don't know," perhaps when the child asked, "Why does God always do what's good?" or soon after.
This argument sounds clever but one needs to step back and think about it. What he seems to be saying is that anything that can't be perceived may exist in some way. So if no one has actually seen or smelt the Easter Bunny, then it is possible that the Easter Bunny exists. This doesn't sound like an enormously helpful argument. Or, less facetiously, any God that can't be perceived may exist. So all kinds of different Gods could exist according to this argument.
Secondly, why are we assuming that (the Christian) God is noumenal? If one reads the Old Testament, God interacts with many characters like Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, etc. Wasn't he supposed to have helped the Israelites to defeat their foes? Don't we pray to God because we hope he will have some impact on people's lives? What about angels? Noumenal or phenomenol?
What did Kant think about Leprechauns ?
Extra dimension is depth to Cartesian 2d thinking.And the other dimension is divergence and convergence to infinity and dot,the other dimension is matter and energy as conscious force and conscious energy.All in Veda esoteric thinking.Such as good conceptualization of consciousness by Sri Aurobindo
I wonder if Imannuel ever trod on a lego in his
bare feet. That's pretty fckng real...even if it
isn't. 🥺
"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."
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. The metaphysical knowledge Kant denies to pure reason is total comprehension: a knowledge of God (the sum of all reality), the world (the total object of experience), and the soul (the absolute subject of experience). From these as premises the whole of actuality might be deduced. But no such comprehension is possible. Man is a being frustrated by destiny [Schicksal], incapable by nature of achieving what would be the crowning satisfaction of his nature’s theoretical demands.
But Kant believes that no natural desire is vain. And so he transfers man’s satisfaction from the theoretical to the practical sphere. It is in action and by moral freedom that men achieve the end they were made for. The failure of theory is seen by Kant as a felix naufragium, to remind men that their destiny is not to know but to act. They are denied the beatific vision in order that they may attain the highest good. Knowledge must be destroyed to make room for practical faith. To know everything would be to know that everything is determined by necessary laws. It is only our theoretical ignorance that makes possible our faith in the power of freedom. Quote by Kant, Analysis by Louis H Mackey "From the Open Universe to the Closed World: A Meditation on Philosophic Attitudes."
Yeah, not bad, but the most telling passage in Critique of Pure Reason is where Kant admits that "we do not know whether it is correct to speak of Things-in-themselves, or The Thing-in-itself". If the latter is correct this has profound consequences for systematic philosophy, since there then exists a model First Principle capable of systematically solving all the Riddles and "hard problems" at-a-stroke.
Even philosophy is a invention as God is. One may ask as a child, how do you know. Circumstances and questions may build doubt and uncertainty and more inquiries
Simply put we cannot know God in his essence, but we know him and his energies. Saint Gregory Palomar’s
His essence would be his identity. If you cannot know his essence or identity, you cannot know him or his "energies"
@@ExistenceUniversity Of course you can, you can know about a fire through its heat alone, you cannot say exactly what it is but you definately know it's not cold, and that's how we attain knowledge of God, not through his essence but through what He's energies are not.
@@sibberianno6333 You do realize that not all things that are hot are fires right? So feeling hot does not mean fire, in fact it could be hot water. But this is still a physical feeling, what physical feeling does God's essence feel like and where did he touch you?
@@sibberianno6333 Let me add that non-sense to the John Galt Speech about God:
They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know [*by what his energy is not*], they say-and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
@@ExistenceUniversity Sure, that was what I was getting at, you can't know if it's water or fire or what it is exactly but you do know for sure it's a source of warmth. And I could describe you my personal experience of God's energies (not it's essence) but I think I'd be more useful to point you to neuroscientific studies of people having mystical experiences, I think that's a good approximation of how it feels like.
Any and every god described in any and every book of any and every religion does not exist.
Great explanation!