OT: Kant's 6th proof....

[red5angel]

Does anyone have a good link or information on Kant's 6th Proof of God?

[MasterKiller]

Are you referring to "The Only Possible Ground of Proof for a Demonstration of God's Existence"?

[red5angel]

yep

[Merryprankster]

I believe it's a moral argument based on synthetic a priori.

If you think I know what that means, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I've never read it, but I suspect that Kant postulates that our concept of morality must come from somewhere because it's a priori. You don't develop a conscience out of experience. Moral force must be attributed to something that can make a distinction between right and wrong (a lions killing is amoral, for instance). Consequently, this proves gods existence.

I also suspect his version is longer and better.

And that was before we discovered that irreducible complexity can be evolved, and that morality can be considered the hardwired expression of game theory.

[red5angel]

lol, I did some reading on it a long time ago but can't recall any of the details. I also can't seem to locate a good webpage on it.

[Nick Forrer]

Kants ethical view if I recall (and this may of course be wrong-its been a while) is roughly this:

Reason not sentiment or insinct is the foundation of morality

Ergo in sofar as man is a rational animal he is a moral animal in that he recognises understands and deploys moral concepts as part of the way he interacts with the world

How is reason the foundation of morality?

Well 'the good' is what we should do therefore any act which would prohibit/impede us from doing what we 'should do' in the future cant be good, since it will stop us from doing what we should be doing. (slightly circular I know but perhaps not viciously so)

therefore acts which negate their future repetition are immoral

thus for e.g. murder is wrong because if everyone commited murder there would be no one left to do any more murdering. Likewise with stealing, lying etc.

Roughly then the universal moral law which all rational beings recognise and are bound by (though of course not everyone chooses to do so) is 'act as if the intended result of your action were to become a universal law. Would that be self negating? If so it is immoral'

Of course like Hempels Raven paradox (viz. that 'all ravens are black' is equivalent to 'all non black things are non ravens' and thus observations of white swans, red noses etc. confirm that ravens are indeed black) this generates some fairly counter intuitive conclusions.

But as i understand it that is the categorical imperitive in a nutshell.

On God..........

Kant debunked the Ontological argument (viz. that God, defined as a perfect being, must exist since a thing that exists is more perfect than a thing that doesnt) by claiming that existence is not a predicate (an observation that modern Logic (post Frege) confirms since 'Harry is hungry' and 'Harry exists' although superficially similiar have a fundamentally different underlying logical stucture - to be is to be the value of a variable to quote Quine)

And he was hostile to the cosmological argument too (the unmoved mover) since it is simply question begging (if God created the Universe who created God?). It also assumes that you cant have an infinite regress although Kant with his antinomies of space and time tried to show that both an infinite regress view of time (i.e. that time has no beginning) and a first cause view of time (that time does have a beginning) lead to paradoxes equally - hence the unreality of time.

He did give credence to the argument from design though which I think alludes to the original question

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I believe it's a moral argument based on synthetic a priori.

If you think I know what that means, I've got a bridge to sell you.



The Key to understanding it (Kants 'synthetic a priori' classification) is as a refutation or at least clarification of Humes Fork - i.e. that all meaningful propositions fall into one of two categories:

Either

1) truths of reason, that is propositions whose truth or falsity can be ascertained purely by an examination of what they contain, without the need to refer to the external world. For e.g. the statement 'either it is raining or not raining' can be known to be true without having to go outside and check the weather. Like wise 'if Harry is a batchelor then Harry is unmarried' does not require me to go and quiz Harry on his marital status.

or

2) truths of fact e.g. 'Water freezes at 0 deg.'. The only way to know if this is true is to go out and actually make observations about the temperature at which water freezes. We cant settle the question of its truth or falsity simply by an analysis of the concept 'water'.

The fundamental difference between the two categories is that
truths of fact can be denied without contradiction whereas truths of reason cant. Why cant they? Because the predicate in a truth of reason is 'contained' in the subject. So the predicate 'unmarried' is contained in the subject 'The bachelor'. In other words 'Bachelor' means 'unmarried man' - the two terms are interchangable. Thus 'The Bachelor is unmarried' is a truth of reason since its denial 'The Bachelor is married' is contradictory.

However Kant thinks there are propositions which overlap these two categories. For example he thinks that some propositions are such that the Subject does not contain the predicate i.e. the statement can be denied without generating a contradiction and yet we can settle the question of their truth of falsity without the need for empirical observation. According to him the truths of (Euclidean) Geometry are like this. For example 'Parallel Lines never meet'. We do not have to go and see if this true- we intuitively know that it is, buts its denial is not contradictory in the way that the 'The bachelor is married' is. Thus it is Synthetic (since, strictly speaking, the predicate is not contained in the subject; its denial is not contradictory) and yet it is a priori since its truth does not require empirical confirmation.

Hence Synthetic a priori

As an addendum Modern philosophers have six categories of proposition not two like Hume or four like Kant: analytic/synthetic; a priori/a posteriori and necessary/contingent

[ZIM]

I close my eyes and I imagine seeing a flock of birds. Perhaps the vision lasts a second or less, whichever. Because of this, there are birds I could not have consciously seen.

How do we define their number? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is defined, because God knows whichever birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody could take the count. In such case, I saw less than ten birds (say) and more than one, but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three or two. I saw a number between ten and one, that is not nine, eight, seven, six, five, et cetera. That the number is not a whole number is inconceivable: Ergo, God exists.

-JL Borges

[Radhnoti]

"God is all good.
God is all powerful.

And yet...evil does seem to exist."
-my university logic professor

Thus began my loss of faith in college, it was the first time I'd even considered the possibility that my parents and teachers to that point COULD be wrong. Wrecked my world at the time...

[Mr Punch]

I don't think JL Borges was the sharpest tool in the box.

[ZIM]

Originally posted by Mat
I don't think JL Borges was the sharpest tool in the box. He's dead. I don't think he'll mind your criticism one bit. ;)

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by ZIM
I close my eyes and I imagine seeing a flock of birds. Perhaps the vision lasts a second or less, whichever. Because of this, there are birds I could not have consciously seen.

How do we define their number? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is defined, because God knows whichever birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody could take the count. In such case, I saw less than ten birds (say) and more than one, but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three or two. I saw a number between ten and one, that is not nine, eight, seven, six, five, et cetera. That the number is not a whole number is inconceivable: Ergo, God exists.

-JL Borges
Borges rocks.

I've smiled though most of this thread but Borges is my hero. For an ESL guy his use of language blows my mind sometimes. I wish I could pick up a collection of his essays here in Xi'an.

[Merryprankster]

So Nick, Kant was really refuting the "false dilemma" nature of the line of argument being applied?

Hence the critique of pure reason?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Too often we build structures where none is needed and none previously existed.. the Universe got along quite nicely prior to man's theories and laws.. noticably, man's theories and laws are deficient by reason of limitations inherent to man's own perceptions..

"God" is a "word" that carries way too much religious baggage.. as a concept, it has merit as a simple collective consciousness.. it has no merit as an adjudicator of cosmic justice..

Logical structure is useless in philosophical thought.. it is an artificial confinement of convenience for those content "inside the box"..

Be well..

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob

Logical structure is useless in philosophical thought.. it is an artificial confinement of convenience for those content "inside the box"..

Whether we like it or not we all use logic when we argue. The only issue is whether we apply it well or badly. The predicate calculus (modern Logic) is a powerful tool which helps clear up confusion and ambiguity. For example 'Everyone loves someone' is ambiguous: it could mean 'everyone loves someone or other' or 'there is someone in particular who everyone loves'. The predicate calculus eliminates these ambiguities (just one of its advantages).

[TaiChiBob]

case in point..

Be well..

[Merryprankster]

Logical structure is useless in philosophical thought..

So what is?

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
case in point..


Pithy barbs do not an argument make.......

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


Pithy barbs do not an argument make....... Not a barb.. an observation that it is too easy to rely on preconceived structure (logic) usually contrived by someone else.. rather than trust one's own natural inclinations.. True, though, we do use logic in many ways.. i just find it (note i said "I") odd to rely on logic to explore something that inherently exists outside the realm conventional logic.. a case where logic suggests that logic is inappropriate.. have the experiences without the confines of logic.. then, analyze that experience with whatever mechanism one finds favorable.. the problem is when "logic" pre-supposes an outcome and the experience is prejudiced by such suppositions..

Be well..

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
case in point..

Be well..

lmao! i agree with that bob said... just be more specific!

[MoreMisfortune]

aaaaaaaaand that proves nothing
thank you very much

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


aaaaaaaaand that proves nothing In the face of things obvious by simple observation or results ascertained by common-sense, i am amused at those that fall-back on the Mantra of "prove it".. in the larger picture, i have no need to burden myself with dictums of logic or evidence of proofs.. we each possess an inherent "knowing", too few trust it.. it is the snails of the universe that inch along examining each situation, scrutinizing each facet, looking for every possible crack in a concept, hoping to emerge as Mr. Right that quash humanity's spontaneity, that sterilize each experience.. Certainly, there is a place for the scientific method.. more certainly, there are situations and events beyond the measurement and observation limitations currently available to the scientific community.. the inability of science to measure and quantify something doesn't disprove it, it only points out the limitations of the observer.. of course, i approve of science that eliminates dead-end paths in favor of those with promise and merit, but i find science too eager to discount anything it can't currently quantify.. and, that eagerness too often translates into a message of negativity regarding potential and possibility..

What we have is a quasi-adversarial yet symbiotic relationship between the scientific community and the metaphysical community.. each lamenting their perspectives of the other.. while all the time, the metaphysicist explores the unknown returning unproven accounts of miraculous experiences which yields much in the way of new subjects for the scientist to discect and analyze.. this is as it has been for ages, and it is a beneficial symbiosis.. the only drawback being the egos involved in the exchange.. So much of what we accept as fact today was, at some time, fanciful notions or ridiculed assertions.. both camps are essential to the human experience and the improvement of the human condition.. remember, that science will stagnate and die without new and unproven theories to feed their process.. and, metaphysics will suffer at the demands of life without science to enhance the quality of it..

Be well..