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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
There is only one requirement to know that God exists and that is "Be still and know that I am God" so Kant got that wrong, so Kant know is definitely Can know because God says so! If he had just spent some time being still.
Phenomenal realization of god can be had without defining god as such, so when Abdusattarov beats a chess champion named Gukesh we immediately know someone named Gukesh (and another person named Abdusattarov) who went through a phenomenon of beating him in chess by Abdusattarov. Similarly god created Gukesh in a phenomenon that doesn't lead us to god but the phenomenon of creating Gukesh, like Copernicus showed the phenomenon of the earth moving around the sun proving the existence of both earth and the sun. God can be seen by the creation of Gukesh and Abdussatrov.
That wouldn't answer the question of God's existence. Kant states that we would not fully know or perceive God but that would say nothing about its existence. If reality is not just what we experience but also exists outside of ourselves our ability to perceive it would hold no ground on if it exists or not. If God exists and we have no way of persevering him he would still exist. The same is true with a mothers face when she covers it when playing peekaboo with her infant child.
No. There are no gods. I'm not going to be nice about this. I'm not going to give you an easy out. Untill you can PROVE that a god exists, then it doesn't.
There’s no reason or good evidence that points to the existence of ANY gods let alone the god character in the Old Testament or New Testament of the bible. I don’t give a shit how smart or philosophical you think you are.
Are Zeus and Hades noumenal too? Is Harry Potter noumenal? Are all fantasy and mythology characters noumenal? No, they're just nonexistent. To even assume imaginary things are noumenal without having any evidence is insane and illogical
"without having any evidence" plenty of evidence , just depends on what you would interpret as evidence , the fact is that there are many supernatural phenomena that points to dimensions we cannot perceive , so it would be childish to say , just because I cannot see feel or touch God He doesn't exist so then you also don't believe in atoms
@@thebrunoserge no it's more like you anti-theists are too stupid to string evidence together , you want a one liner explains everything scenario because that is all your intellect can handle unfortunately "reality" doesn't work that way a cop doesn't go to court and say , hey I saw that guy walk past the crime scene so he must be guilty and then the judge sentences the guy it takes several pieces of evidence to prove anything about anything so if you can't string it all together you will never have "evidence" and you seemingly are one of those stupid people , or perhaps you are just to lazy to read who knows and to be frank I don't care , it's your problem
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.
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.
Really bad summary. Kant addressed a very precise concept of God, he gave very precise reasons why knowledge doesn't work for this concept, and then he provided (what he took as) purely practical reasons to believe in God as a supreme moral being.
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?
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
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.
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 🥺.
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)?
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?
R8chard Dawkins, what do you think? That would drive him potty. Actually I wondered where this was going, im going to go to bed thinking about this instead of sleeping. Here is the really interesting thing, , according to classic science, everything can be explained by material reductionism, however does matter exist?? Many believe that particles are energy strings. Nikola said to understand the universe we need to understand energy , frequency and vibrations.
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.
@@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!
makes sense...our senses does limit what we can know out there...I've often thought of my brain/mind as simply a cookie cutter...as far as I know, the ultimate noumenal reality is just one singular amorphous goo...IDK.
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?
This is not even what kant even says. The Copernican revolution of Kant is seeing that the laws of nature (the rationalloy of the world) is introduced by humans, not in the world itself necessarily - not shifting of perspectives. His nomenal argument is that things absolutely aren't based in relational things like the senses (perception is not reality, it is thought but not sensed). Knowledge is only meaningful if it contains experimental reference. Thus we can never have knowledge of things in themselves. So we can think of god, but since we have never sensed him, we have no knowledge of god, we can think of him but never have knowledge (god is beyond sense since then he would just be an aspect of nature and nature is governed by the laws of nature as our mind can only conceive of nature under laws - necessary rules...it would be no god as all just a powerful natural being). By limiting our knowledge of god, we save its possibility as something beyond spacetime (nature) and the senses. we regard god as existing bc we will happiness for it to actually obtain there is a god that insures it. Yet we can't know god existing bc predication of existence is meaningless - (u point to only essences, not existence, existence cannot make the thing any greater).
@@Kyrana4102 i think Kant would just point out the circulatory of the demonstration. (1) god exists according to the bible (2) the bible is the word of god (3) god's word is always true. it doesn't add to our conceptions of the world. i havent read religion within the bounds of reason, no i cannot fully comment on kant's view of the gospels. sorry.
Kant's dodge. The popular claim is that God interacts with the material world and should therefore be detectable, just as radio waves, gamma radiation, and gravity waves are detectable. That burden of proof is not met. Kant would have the same thing to say about the noumenal dragon in my garage.
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.
Our perspective, or should I say, most people's perspective of God is biased by the ideas and man made holy books. "God" or the architect of this universe/illusion/simulation is something we will never be able to comprehend. Not even the "gods" in this creation/matrix will ever understand that force. We're all slaves under an unimaginable force, it's his-story. Peace and love human fellows, enjoy the ride ✌️ ❤
Something - like God- could be BOTH phenomenal AND noumenal. He/ She /It could have aspects of both. So, Kant was wrong by assuming that God -if He/ She/ It exists was noumenal and therefore the question could not be definitively answered.
What a load of horsecrap. So God is phenomenal (as many claim, Bible, etc) but also noumenal? What a pathetic and useless claim. Keep in mind most are making very very specific claims about God.
Reading Kant's blathering and verbal diarrhea is always extremely annoying. He contemplates belly-button lint, and discusses it in voluminous, arcane, tongue-twisting terms, to promote bullsh*t conclusions. It is nice that he at least rejects the ridiculous "ontological argument" for God's existence, but his own baloney is not much better. It is widely felt that Kant was hostile to religion, but it is difficult to tell whether he is trying to offer critique, or kissing up in cowardly fashion, so as not to bring down the full wrath of the Christian Taliban of his time. Anyone who cannot see what a load that the concept of "God" is seems more like a grifting pseudo-intellectual, like Jordan Peterson.
Kant is an exhausting waste of time. Just study Buddhism. It makes much more sense using language at a 3rd grade reading level. Kant has sentences with dozens of words and numerous compound phrases. If he was such a genius, why Kant he write in simple terms.
This is a really just John Hick's application of Kantian transcendentalism to the Divine. Except the Kant asserts the necessary existence of the noumenal as a preseupposition for the possibility of experience, much as Hick affirms the necessary existence of the Divine as a presupposition for the very possiiblity of Divine 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
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.
History shows when this new god came about. It did not exist 2200 years ago. Monotheism also did not exist before akenatens religion 4000 years ago. Another point is over 100 creation stories. Take off the Christian centric glasses.
Thus, then, the antiquity and universality of a belief should be regarded, contrary to all science and all logic, as sufficient and unimpeachable proof of its truth. Why? Bakunin
The picture of the tree is nothing but ones and zeros, just as the tree is nothing but atoms electrons, neutrons , which are ultimately just waves physical objects are ultimately non physical objects, if you look close enough, you see right through it, it’s all a paradox, try to enjoy life
And then Kant continues with his revolutionary moral argument for the existence of God, which is both phenomenal (objective ethical values) and rational. Since we have ethical values/morality, there must be justice. If there is justice, how do all the wrong people get away with wicked actions? Kant says there must be a continuing consciousness after life to establish Justice. So there is a judgment, then! If there is a Judgement, there must be the One who judges! Therefore, God exists!
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.
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…
Nice video, one can easily infer the sides of the theist versus materialist position. 7:00 As far as comparing god or *God* to radio waves, it is not a good comparison because radio waves are detectable by reproducible equipment. God is not detectable by any such equipment, though one might argue that god is hazily or vaguely detectable by our finely tuned god-experience-channel brains. But that's a subjective kind of detect-ability, not quantifiable or reproducible by cold hard metal, plastic, and LED screens. If someone complains that all experience is subjective, necessarily, i don't think kind of reply helps the theist position. Not all subjective experiences should be treated the same, or on the same footing of truth. e.g. dreaming consciousness is not the same kind of subjective experience as waking consciousness. To be more concrete, driving in a dream is very different than driving awake, viz., there are different kind of consequences.
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.
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.
this is without his extensive study on works on metaphysics , short answer via Kant "God does exist" long answer "through reasoning and internalization we come to that conclusion", video is nice , but it is a disservice if not completely shown outright.
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 .
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.
I had a dog which had horns of buffalo. And that is as much real as god is. If you dare to not believe it, then prove it. Since you cannot prove in your life time that I did not have a dog with horns you have to admit that I must had it once in my backyard. That is where god exist too.
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)
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 understand that for a popular kind of video you need to make some simplification, but this is wrong in so many aspects that I think that this is not matter of simplification...
Aristotle would disagree with Kant, if God exists we do know something about Him. His reasoning was that evil is a privation of the good and therefore the bottom of reality, it's origin, must be the good. So we know that God must be good in order to be God.
"Maybe, lol."
Data no found! A slight smile.
Maybe. NOT! 😀
Which God
@@nataliarey1271If you want " data " then you are stuck in the phenomenal world.😂😂
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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
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?
Thanks 🙏 short and easy way to understand.
There r so many things given in holy scriptures now we knw after thousand of year
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.
Nice camera but you are wrong about Kant and radio waves
There is only one requirement to know that God exists and that is "Be still and know that I am God" so Kant got that wrong, so Kant know is definitely Can know because God says so! If he had just spent some time being still.
I ❤this excellent explanation.It's much better than others. Thank you,Mr Kant
Phenomenal realization of god can be had without defining god as such, so when Abdusattarov beats a chess champion named Gukesh we immediately know someone named Gukesh (and another person named Abdusattarov) who went through a phenomenon of beating him in chess by Abdusattarov. Similarly god created Gukesh in a phenomenon that doesn't lead us to god but the phenomenon of creating Gukesh, like Copernicus showed the phenomenon of the earth moving around the sun proving the existence of both earth and the sun. God can be seen by the creation of Gukesh and Abdussatrov.
Well we can experience radio waves with a little tech . We have good technology but still no god.
Thanks!
That wouldn't answer the question of God's existence. Kant states that we would not fully know or perceive God but that would say nothing about its existence. If reality is not just what we experience but also exists outside of ourselves our ability to perceive it would hold no ground on if it exists or not. If God exists and we have no way of persevering him he would still exist. The same is true with a mothers face when she covers it when playing peekaboo with her infant child.
you explain it well.
Kant didn't believe in divine self-revelation, then?
No. There are no gods.
I'm not going to be nice about this.
I'm not going to give you an easy out.
Untill you can PROVE that a god exists, then it doesn't.
Silly because then nothing exists
There’s no reason or good evidence that points to the existence of ANY gods let alone the god character in the Old Testament or New Testament of the bible.
I don’t give a shit how smart or philosophical you think you are.
The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart." - Blaise Pascal
Wow good stuff
If you want to know if Bigfoot exists, you go searching for Bigfoot.
No, just ask him to appear. If you're worthy he'll show up.
william craig
حلوه القناة
No, god does not exist.
God exist believable.
As for Jesus and the whole giving your life to him? 🥴
Explained nothing , just more of the same nonsense. The clue is in the middle of the word. Believe.
Are Zeus and Hades noumenal too? Is Harry Potter noumenal? Are all fantasy and mythology characters noumenal? No, they're just nonexistent. To even assume imaginary things are noumenal without having any evidence is insane and illogical
"without having any evidence" plenty of evidence , just depends on what you would interpret as evidence , the fact is that there are many supernatural phenomena that points to dimensions we cannot perceive , so it would be childish to say , just because I cannot see feel or touch God He doesn't exist
so then you also don't believe in atoms
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Sooo no evidence. Got it
@@thebrunoserge no it's more like you anti-theists are too stupid to string evidence together , you want a one liner explains everything scenario because that is all your intellect can handle
unfortunately "reality" doesn't work that way
a cop doesn't go to court and say , hey I saw that guy walk past the crime scene
so he must be guilty and then the judge sentences the guy
it takes several pieces of evidence to prove anything about anything
so if you can't string it all together you will never have "evidence"
and you seemingly are one of those stupid people , or perhaps you are just to lazy to read who knows and to be frank I don't care , it's your problem
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.
@@mikeashleigh777 The future is atheism, old man
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.
Really bad summary. Kant addressed a very precise concept of God, he gave very precise reasons why knowledge doesn't work for this concept, and then he provided (what he took as) purely practical reasons to believe in God as a supreme moral being.
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?
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
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.
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.
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)?
If God is (similar to) a radio wave, Jesus is certainly the radio
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?
R8chard Dawkins, what do you think?
That would drive him potty.
Actually I wondered where this was going, im going to go to bed thinking about this instead of sleeping.
Here is the really interesting thing, , according to classic science, everything can be explained by material reductionism, however does matter exist??
Many believe that particles are energy strings.
Nikola said to understand the universe we need to understand energy , frequency and vibrations.
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.
Nope!
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!
makes sense...our senses does limit what we can know out there...I've often thought of my brain/mind as simply a cookie cutter...as far as I know, the ultimate noumenal reality is just one singular amorphous goo...IDK.
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?
This is not even what kant even says. The Copernican revolution of Kant is seeing that the laws of nature (the rationalloy of the world) is introduced by humans, not in the world itself necessarily - not shifting of perspectives. His nomenal argument is that things absolutely aren't based in relational things like the senses (perception is not reality, it is thought but not sensed). Knowledge is only meaningful if it contains experimental reference. Thus we can never have knowledge of things in themselves. So we can think of god, but since we have never sensed him, we have no knowledge of god, we can think of him but never have knowledge (god is beyond sense since then he would just be an aspect of nature and nature is governed by the laws of nature as our mind can only conceive of nature under laws - necessary rules...it would be no god as all just a powerful natural being). By limiting our knowledge of god, we save its possibility as something beyond spacetime (nature) and the senses. we regard god as existing bc we will happiness for it to actually obtain there is a god that insures it. Yet we can't know god existing bc predication of existence is meaningless - (u point to only essences, not existence, existence cannot make the thing any greater).
@@Kyrana4102 i think Kant would just point out the circulatory of the demonstration. (1) god exists according to the bible (2) the bible is the word of god (3) god's word is always true. it doesn't add to our conceptions of the world. i havent read religion within the bounds of reason, no i cannot fully comment on kant's view of the gospels. sorry.
do not ask philosophers ,theologians or the praying class anything technical. They would not know.
The tree does not have colour. Your experience of a tree has colour. That's a basic phen/noum distinction.
Kant's dodge. The popular claim is that God interacts with the material world and should therefore be detectable, just as radio waves, gamma radiation, and gravity waves are detectable. That burden of proof is not met. Kant would have the same thing to say about the noumenal dragon in my garage.
A sound wave is not phenomenal. A sound is phenomenal. You don't seem to have a grasp of the basics.
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 :)
Our perspective, or should I say, most people's perspective of God is biased by the ideas and man made holy books. "God" or the architect of this universe/illusion/simulation is something we will never be able to comprehend. Not even the "gods" in this creation/matrix will ever understand that force. We're all slaves under an unimaginable force, it's his-story. Peace and love human fellows, enjoy the ride ✌️ ❤
Something - like God- could be BOTH phenomenal AND noumenal. He/ She /It could have aspects of both. So, Kant was wrong by assuming that God -if He/ She/ It exists was noumenal and therefore the question could not be definitively answered.
What a load of horsecrap. So God is phenomenal (as many claim, Bible, etc) but also noumenal? What a pathetic and useless claim. Keep in mind most are making very very specific claims about God.
Reading Kant's blathering and verbal diarrhea is always extremely annoying. He contemplates belly-button lint, and discusses it in voluminous, arcane, tongue-twisting terms, to promote bullsh*t conclusions. It is nice that he at least rejects the ridiculous "ontological argument" for God's existence, but his own baloney is not much better. It is widely felt that Kant was hostile to religion, but it is difficult to tell whether he is trying to offer critique, or kissing up in cowardly fashion, so as not to bring down the full wrath of the Christian Taliban of his time. Anyone who cannot see what a load that the concept of "God" is seems more like a grifting pseudo-intellectual, like Jordan Peterson.
Kant is an exhausting waste of time. Just study Buddhism. It makes much more sense using language at a 3rd grade reading level.
Kant has sentences with dozens of words and numerous compound phrases. If he was such a genius, why Kant he write in simple terms.
This is a really just John Hick's application of Kantian transcendentalism to the Divine. Except the Kant asserts the necessary existence of the noumenal as a preseupposition for the possibility of experience, much as Hick affirms the necessary existence of the Divine as a presupposition for the very possiiblity of Divine 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
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.
History shows when this new god came about. It did not exist 2200 years ago. Monotheism also did not exist before akenatens religion 4000 years ago. Another point is over 100 creation stories. Take off the Christian centric glasses.
Thus, then, the antiquity and universality of a belief should be regarded, contrary to all science and all logic, as sufficient and unimpeachable proof of its truth. Why? Bakunin
The picture of the tree is nothing but ones and zeros, just as the tree is nothing but atoms electrons, neutrons , which are ultimately just waves physical objects are ultimately non physical objects, if you look close enough, you see right through it, it’s all a paradox, try to enjoy life
And then Kant continues with his revolutionary moral argument for the existence of God, which is both phenomenal (objective ethical values) and rational.
Since we have ethical values/morality, there must be justice. If there is justice, how do all the wrong people get away with wicked actions? Kant says there must be a continuing consciousness after life to establish Justice. So there is a judgment, then! If there is a Judgement, there must be the One who judges! Therefore, God exists!
Critical flaw here is usually what we believe is an unjust act may not be and who we believe to a just person may not be
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.
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…
Nice video, one can easily infer the sides of the theist versus materialist position.
7:00 As far as comparing god or *God* to radio waves, it is not a good comparison because radio waves are detectable by reproducible equipment. God is not detectable by any such equipment, though one might argue that god is hazily or vaguely detectable by our finely tuned god-experience-channel brains. But that's a subjective kind of detect-ability, not quantifiable or reproducible by cold hard metal, plastic, and LED screens. If someone complains that all experience is subjective, necessarily, i don't think kind of reply helps the theist position. Not all subjective experiences should be treated the same, or on the same footing of truth. e.g. dreaming consciousness is not the same kind of subjective experience as waking consciousness. To be more concrete, driving in a dream is very different than driving awake, viz., there are different kind of consequences.
How much knowledge human want god will give us U C thousands of research is made by mistake it's not mistake its knowledge given by God human
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?
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
Several minutes of listening time I won't get back.
Das Ding an sich ist nicht erkennbar..... think of Quantum Mechanics ! Which is largely noumenal and is accepted as Science today.
For the religious zealots this doesn’t mean their God exists and we just can’t perceive him, Their God most certainly does not exist.
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.
Bingo!!!
Me, me, 🙋🏽♂️ I know the answer: God is as real as Yoda, right 😊
this is without his extensive study on works on metaphysics , short answer via Kant "God does exist" long answer "through reasoning and internalization we come to that conclusion", video is nice , but it is a disservice if not completely shown outright.
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 .
How to quickly define existence…& or reality…drop into a lions den, the rest won’t matter
I "Kant" tell you. LOL I did not see that coming.
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?
Well then there's no reason for us to believe that we can't know anything in itself .so his idea is self refuting
OK so God is like radio waves, gotcha
I had a dog which had horns of buffalo. And that is as much real as god is. If you dare to not believe it, then prove it. Since you cannot prove in your life time that I did not have a dog with horns you have to admit that I must had it once in my backyard. That is where god exist too.
God exists, if you want him to exist.
He does exist.
That settles that then, thousands of years of arguing and wars have come to an end
"he". Bold of you to assume god's gender.
Not True! We know he came. God is man and man is God
Kant was not a philosopher...neither was Rousseau or Hegel
So he sent his only son who is both phnomenal and noumenal
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)
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!
We Kant experience God
Good explaination.
Watched all of it 2:42
I understand that for a popular kind of video you need to make some simplification, but this is wrong in so many aspects that I think that this is not matter of simplification...
How is it wrong?
No he does not exist
What is the speaker's name?
Aristotle would disagree with Kant, if God exists we do know something about Him. His reasoning was that evil is a privation of the good and therefore the bottom of reality, it's origin, must be the good. So we know that God must be good in order to be God.
Kan't answer that
Essentially solipsism?