[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 65 KB, 800x600, 81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14287421 No.14287421 [Reply] [Original]

>Hmm yes 1 stick + 1 stick = 2 sticks therefore god is real

Wow

If Kant's argument for God is all Christians have, they're fucked.

>> No.14287428

Is this a parody of a phoneposter thread? Or is it your first attempt to "fit in" after lurking for a while?

>> No.14287429

>>14287421
Kant was retarded and that's not the only argument Christians have to prove the existence of God.

>> No.14287434

>>14287428
I'm just saying that his transcendental argument is literal autism.

>> No.14287442

he doesn't say god is real though he says we must act AS IF god is real in order for morality to matter

>> No.14287451

>>14287421
What are you talking about?

>> No.14287458

>>14287442
You're talking out of your ass, I'm making explicit reference to his argument for god's existence.
>>14287451
His transcendental argument.

>> No.14287461

>>14287434
You should be able to summarize it briefly and state your criticism of it then.

>> No.14287489

>>14287461
he says,
1. objective truth exists
2. objective truth exists without man
3. objective truth is transcendent
4. since it is abstract, transcendent truth, it is a result of a transcendent mind capable of transcendent thought

i say, 1 stick + 1 stick = 2 sticks does not demonstrate a transcendent mind

>> No.14287502

>>14287489
that's descartes

>> No.14287515

>>14287489
t. midwit who cant even understand Kant
This thread is fucking embarassing OP. You can still delete it, its not too late.

>> No.14287520

>>14287458
you're the one talking out of your ass, he literally spends the entire transcendental dialectic, pretty much HALF of the critique of pure reason talking about why we can't prove gods existence. his argument for god is purely as a postulate for the possibility of pure practical reason, it one of his famous "as if" questions, EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE

>>14287489
the fuck are you on about, give us direct sources in kants work

>> No.14287524

>>14287515
>>14287520
that may not be kant but it is a compelling argument for going beyond kant and asking about the constitutive ground of reason and why we merely "participate" in objectivities which are given for us

which is a neoplatonic or illuminationist perspective

>> No.14287543
File: 42 KB, 761x777, ponk_floyd_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14287543

no
1/−01≥2≤3>4>5>6>7>8>9>1/+0>1>2>3>4>5>6>7>8>9>1/−01>1>2>3>4>5>6>7>8>9>1/+0>...
therefore the G[o]od

>> No.14287556

>>14287489
>objective truth exists
cringed right there

>> No.14287557
File: 31 KB, 298x445, 9780803277779.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14287557

>>14287520
>>14287515
>>14287502
>>14287556

You can disagree with my argument all you want, but I am representing his argument accurately. This is unequivocally true. I don't care if you disagree with me. It's a true statement that this is his argument. You're midwits for ignorantly criticizing me when you haven't actually read his work.

>> No.14287569

>religious philosopher just happens to prove God in their system

Wow they totally didn't already have their mind made up when going into the problem

>> No.14287575

>>14287543
Too fucking based

>> No.14287577

>>14287557
oh yeah bro his early as fuck work which he decried as his dogmatic stage and refutes in his mature thought, yeah bro absolutely u are right, thats definitely kants argument for god

>> No.14287578

>>14287421
I LOVE YOU DADDY


Is that so hard to say?

>> No.14287584

>>14287577
Moving the goalposts

>> No.14287686

>>14287557
Lol, this is his argument for God as ens necessarium, this is from before his "critical period". No one thinks of his pre-critical period as truly Kantian.

This is like people confusing early Wittgenstein with late Wittgenstein.
Kant's later "proofs" (they aren't proofs) for God are massively different and take a segway through ethics.

Brainlet idiot, do your research.

>> No.14287702

>>14287686
completely true with respect to kant though I believe there is worth in both sides of wittgenstein. kants pre-critical period though is worth zilch

>> No.14287706

>>14287557
this is precritical, this is like saying "wtf copernicus literally believes in geocentrism what a retard" because he published astronomical treatises or calculations presupposing the ptolemaic model when he was 30

usually when people say "copernicus" they mean copernican heliocentric astronomy, similar usually when people say kant they don't mean the tradition he wrote in until publishing the critical philosophy that made him one of the most famous philosophers ever

your OP is closer to conventional platonic truths of god's existence that emphasize rationality's self-subsistence and then ask for a necessary ground of that rationality and identify it with god. even then it's incomplete

>> No.14287716

>>14287489
>>14287557

I love how this guy is the only one addressing the actual topic and is even providing sources. Yet all of you are sperging out like the midwits you are.

The state of this board...

>> No.14287717

>>14287702
>kants pre-critical period though is worth zilch

there is actually a lot of good stuff in it

>>14287686
i think OP should be commended for having read something (in all honesty he probably read the summary on wikipedia but let's be generous) and forgiven for being a newbie and not knowing the pre-critical/critical distinction

however OP's initial shitposting is unforgivable. the thread would have gone better if you had posted like a normal person instead of a zoomer amped up on his ritalin

>> No.14287720

>>14287716
samefag

>> No.14287730

>>14287421
atheist cringe

>> No.14287819

>>14287720
I'm not samefag
>>14287706
>>14287686
I'm not trying to deride Kantianism, I'm simply saying that Kant's argument here is shit, and it's the only rationalist argument for God I've seen, apart from Aquinas' work.

>> No.14287832

>>14287489
I'll be honest, I didn't read him yet. I started with greeks this year. I'll start reading Aristo next week. So, I'm a noob. But I don't understand how 'objective' truth exists and how this is the proof for god's existence. Truth should be objective right? There is no subjective truth. This is more like a answer to the dude who is Presocrat -can't remember his name- said "man is the measure of all things". And comes from "everything should be a thought of something". If everything except us is a thought of something above us, who or what thought of itf? This can go endlessly like this and it's retarded. I don't think god's existence should be reasonable or rational btw. I'm just saying this way of thinking assumes that we except the somethings beforehand. And I don't. This the two cents of a noob.

>> No.14287864

>>14287524
he doesn't say this. actually, he says this opposite of this. part of the need for the CPR is to subvert #2.

>> No.14287887

>>14287730
fuck off moth

>> No.14288070

>>14287832
You're asking really stupid questions, just be patient and stop trying to draw direct lines from pre-Socratics to Kant or anything. This stuff is much much much much more complicated that you think.

>> No.14288102

>>14287716
Fuck off, OP. You have already been called out for being a pseud who didn't even bother to check Kant's Wikipedia page properly

>> No.14288126

>>14288102
That's not me, and I don't know why you added the second part on. I know that this book is before real Kantianism, but it's still his argument.

>> No.14288135

>>14287716
Reread the OP once or twice, he's clearly an idiot who didn't post this in hope of a serious discussion.

>> No.14288140

>>14288135
I explained the argument as well as my thoughts on it. It's hard to have a good discussion when the majority of posters are insults without any form of argument, though.

>> No.14288188

>>14288140
The thread is full of arguments as to why OP's claim is wrong and his premises are ill-informed. If you paid some attention, everyone agrees that this line of reasoning is illegitimate, that's not what's being discussed here.

I'm sure you're the OP btw, don't respond to me ever again.

>> No.14288214 [DELETED] 

>>14288188
I thought it was clear that I was the OP when I said that. I'm not >>14287716

You're wrong, btw. Literally no one has argued in favor of the actual argument. Literally no one in this thread.

1+1=2 is human created mathematical notation to describe certain physical realities.

If humanity didn't exist, you would still have one stick lying next to the other one, but it takes a mind to conceptualize this as "two".

In other words, the physical reality would still exist, even if the conceptualization does not.

>> No.14288220

>>14288188
I thought it was clear that I was the OP when I said that. I'm not >>14287716

You're wrong, btw. Literally no one has argued in favor of the actual argument. Literally no one in this thread.

>> No.14288229

>>14287819
Read more. Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes all make rationalist arguments for their own versions of God that are much more famous than Kant's. Either you are being dishonest, a pseud or just posting bait.

>> No.14288231

>>14288214
No one has argued for your retarded ass "philosopheme" about the nature of arithmetic, that's correct. They all agree though that the line of reasoning you falsely attribute (and by the way, massively misunderstand) to what people consider Kantian philosophy.

Just read more, see you in 3-5 years.

>> No.14288240

>>14288231
Not an argument

>> No.14288253

>>14288240
Molyneux is not a philosopher and neither are you.

>> No.14288262

>>14288253
I don't like Molyneux. Are you gonna keep spouting random shit or are you gonna defend Kant's argument?

>> No.14288269

>>14288262
Are you gonna read at some point or are you just gonna pretend you have?

>> No.14288275

>>14288269
I posted this thread because I read a book from Kant and thought it was retarded. Still, no argument from you.

>> No.14288279
File: 94 KB, 750x755, D4zUaGjXoAAZCxh.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14288279

>>14288240
the argument is predicated on an illegitimate leap into knowledge of the noumenon. even the notion of one stick lying next to the other, without the added conceptualization of them equalling two, is dependent on space and time as transcendental forms of human intuition, as well as the understandings discursive cognizing of raw sense data into experience, i.e. without the understanding cognizing sense data by virtue of the pure categories, pic related would be what you'd get, you don't have one stick lying next to another, you only get that by virtue of human understanding organizing it. what you believe to be existent outside of human cognition is not provable, we have no knowledge outside of the limits of human cognition. why are you such a stupid fuck

>> No.14288293

>>14288279
Nice, you dismantled Kant's argument. That's kind of the point of the thread. Another worthless post.

>> No.14288303

>>14288293
u r right bro im sorry for my worthless post

>> No.14288325

>>14288303
I accept your apology. Now quit sperging out and spread the word of this thread's true intention.

>> No.14288332

>>14288325
You should be able to judge by that second-last response to you why yout thread is fucking retarded, everyone knows, everyone agrees, that's not why people think you're a retard.

>> No.14288343

>>14288325
but ur thread is predicated on the idea that this is the only argument christians have, but it isn't. it's what the early kant, and only the early kant, thought was the only argument. no one else thinks this, so your thread is predicated on a false notion. its a bit of a silly thread if all u want is defenses of early kants argument cos no one defends it. can u answer me this friend

>> No.14288381

>>14288332
If everyone agrees I don't see why they should respond with hostility instead of not responding at all. It's ridic bro
>>14288343
It was rhetorical

>> No.14288399

>>14288381
they respond with hostility cos of the way u worded the post bro its calling out all christians as DUMbfucks dont u think

also if it is rhetoric then what is the actual purpose of ur thread, what were u expecting people to respond with

>> No.14288418

>>14288381
Because you're a patent idiot, leave this board asap

>> No.14288425

>>14288418
Not an argument. I told you this before.
>>14288399
I was expecting people to defend the argument, not for them to sperg out completely without addressing anything of substance.

>> No.14288435

>>14288425
Because it's a constative, idiot, leave.

>> No.14288464

>>14288435
My post is good. The problem is the posters.

>> No.14288562

atheists breaking down over yet another super genius being a Godchad