Refute this.

>pure reason can neither proof nor disproof God
>practical reason commends us to postulate God
>therefore we have a duty to believe in God

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    no, that doesn't follow
    you can't prove him and there's not much of a reason to believe in any god or gods either

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why doesn’t it follow?

      >pure reason
      I'm asking for proof Black person

      Why proof? It isn’t a scientific inquiry.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Radiochan

        it doesn't follow because it doesn't follow that there should be a god because of tortured logic based on european standards of christian theology

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no so answer?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why proof?
        Is this question asked of literally anything else? Lol what a cop-out
        >it isn’t a scientific inquiry.
        Why not?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There is a categorical imperative never to reply to triptrannies.

        How about you postulate a girlfriend

        Sex is disgusting.

        >Why proof?
        Is this question asked of literally anything else? Lol what a cop-out
        >it isn’t a scientific inquiry.
        Why not?

        Because it's outside the realm of possible knowledge.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >outside the realm of possible knowledge
          How do you know that? Does god not want there to be any proof of himself?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You do know who Kant was right?
            Only apriori necessary logical conclusions count for knowledge.

            If you think sex with a woman is disgusting you are gay. That’s not a bad thing, but man why are you twisting your brain in knots when gays are the most accepted ever in history?

            I'm not gay I am very sexually attracted to women. I detest the act not the target.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a posteriori logical conclusions don't count because.. they just don't okay??
            So what I'm gathering here is Kant was a pseud and so are you for believing this nonsense

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're gathering wrong and the epistemological limitations he pointed out exist independently of him.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I am very sexually attracted to women. I detest the act not the target.
            Hans Christian Andersen, is that you?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you think sex with a woman is disgusting you are gay. That’s not a bad thing, but man why are you twisting your brain in knots when gays are the most accepted ever in history?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >pure reason
    I'm asking for proof Black person

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How about you postulate a girlfriend

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    reason commends us to postulate God
    Says who?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Immanuel Kant.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well I say otherwise. I guess we're at an impasse, then, and since I prefer and trust my own experiences, I will default to my own stance that there is no reason whatsoever to pretend god exist.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well you're wrong. Tell me how else can you fulfill your duty to pursue the highest good which is when moral goodness and happiness are the same?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >be happy
            >help others
            >no magic israelite in the sky necessary
            Whoa that was hard.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are the israelites in the room with us right now?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >help others
            HELP OTHERS WHY? Because it makes you feel good? Because not doing it makes you feel bad? Then it's not a moral act.
            Do you do it even when it makes you feel bad? Then it's not the highest good.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you do it even when it makes you feel bad? Then it's not the highest good.
            Nonsequitur.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like Kant's appeal to practical reason but it doesn't actually establish the practical need to posit a God, since the role God plays for Kant in his meta-ethics is as the arbiter of just deserts. Even assuming Kant was right about just deserts, you don't need a God when some kind of cosmic law of just deserts could do this in his place. This actually better explains why Indian religions can be transtheistic and affirm karmic law without having to elevate some god above it. They have "gods" but ones just as subject to karmic law as we are. Kant's practical reason succeeds in establishing a need to believe in freedom and immortality of the soul, but not in a God. In God's place it only secures the need for a system of just deserts, one that doesn't conceptually need God to work as in Eastern religion.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rare quality post. I always found the way Kant shoehorns God into his ethics incredibly clumsy.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm constitutionally averse to rationalism, but do agree that reason as such apart from any empirical recourse is bound to solipsism. That's obvious. Now, I think the critical weakness is with the second premise. If solipsism is the best case for our first premise, then why goodwill to all men? Why not ill will? For all we know, assuming rationalism, we are just clocks following a mechanic destiny. If that were true, then good and evil are just words that only accord to feelings in man but not to any reality beyond the blind motion of nature.

    This, BTW, is exactly how it played out in the history of ideas. German idealism collapsed into Schopenhauer's and Nietzsche's perverse fatalism. It's a dead end, the answer is to avoid modern philosophy altogether.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For all we know, assuming rationalism, we are just clocks following a mechanic destiny.
      No? Kant is dead set on free will.
      >If that were true, then good and evil are just words that only accord to feelings in man but not to any reality beyond the blind motion of nature.
      Wrong. Good is acting in accordance with duty.
      How this duty entails the moral law is extrapolated at length in groundworks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No? Kant is dead set on free will.
        Yes, I understand that, but you can't prove it any more than God that it exists merely on the basis of rationalism.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah. These are three postulates of practical reason.

          >I would feel bad if god weren't real, so I must assume its existence

          No achieving the highest good without God is not possible therefore you have a duty to assume his existence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you can't will yourself to achieve the highest good you are devoid of free will

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The highest good is where morality and happiness are the same.

            >postulates of practical reason.
            In other words, special pleading. Mere assertion does not count as proof.

            ... well yeah. Read the first sentence in op again.

            >achieving the highest good is not possible
            Too bad, so sad. Cry about it

            What would that achieve?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The highest good is where morality and happiness are the same.
            Irrelevant; if you have free will you can achieve the highest good

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Only by postulating a perfectly good being.
            The moral value derives from the moral conflict. If you always want to do what is morally right you never had to make a decision between what is right and what you want.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have no free will

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >postulates of practical reason.
            In other words, special pleading. Mere assertion does not count as proof.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Mere assertion does not count as proof.

            Oh yeah? Well I assert that it does. Except I'm calling it a postulate. BOOM! Suck it!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >achieving the highest good is not possible
            Too bad, so sad. Cry about it

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How about you postulate talking to some b***hes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kant was actually quite popular socially. He even had a friend.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The fact that Kant had more friends than me is sending me into existential despair.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I would feel bad if god weren't real, so I must assume its existence

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    do internet searching for "first mover" and "prime mover"

    atheists asked - how did that car get here?
    reply - designed and made by humans

    atheists asked - how did the universe get here?
    reply - poof it magically appeared 1 day

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The cosmological proof of god is moronic and Kant rightly shreds it to pieces.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For every bread there is a baker, for every river there is a riverer, for every universe there is a universer

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does Kant have or know what “pure reason” is for starters. Secondly, we can’t know if anyone had ever used the “pure reason” as it ambiguously stands from the fact that some people have hidden bias, faith, mistakes of reason, and lack of knowledge for reason.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pure reason is reason without referring to any experience.
      So pure logic.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pure reason and practical reason are both made up bullshit and Kant was an idiot

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >duty to believe in God
    >duty
    To what, philosophers? I'm pretty sure they don't need that duty.
    Why can not a concept just exist as a concept? Why does it need believers?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >To what,
      Yourself.
      >philosophers? I'm pretty sure they don't need that duty.
      They need that just as you do.
      >Why can not a concept just exist as a concept? Why does it need believers?
      Because we have a duty to strive for the highest good. This cannot be fulfilled in humans as imperfect creatures

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yourself
        Am I a god?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No? All rational beings have the duty to pursue the highest good.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How can I have a duty to myself?

            >created us with the natural knowledge of Himself
            No he hasn't.For one because that's impossible. Even in your worldview he gave you reason to see the limits of our knowledge. This faux hyperpiety is just self aggrandisement and I assume you're an atheist larper.

            [...]
            The highest good is when moral good and happiness are the same.
            How could it be the HIGHEST good if it makes you unhappy to do it?

            >For one because that's impossible.
            With God all things are ________. Fill in the blank
            >Even in your worldview he gave you reason to see the limits of our knowledge.
            Reason enables me to see the limits of knowledge, but that is itself an article of knowledge. He gave me reason because He made me in His image.
            >This faux hyperpiety is just self aggrandisement
            I'm sorry if I make you feel ashamed, but I'm not interested in glorifying anyone but the Lord.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How can I have a duty to myself?
            Because you have a duty as a rational creature.

            >With God all things are ________. Fill in the blank
            Just immature and stupid. The old stone so heavy... could disprove your god. Because it's not a serious conviction for you but a fashion statement.
            >Reason enables me to see the limits of knowledge, but that is itself an article of knowledge.
            That does nothing to substantiate your claim.
            >I'm sorry if I make you feel ashamed, but I'm not interested in glorifying anyone but the Lord.
            You did nothing the like. I'm done discussing with a larper. Have a nice day.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because you have a duty as a rational creature.
            I have a duty to have a duty to myself?
            >Just immature and stupid. The old stone so heavy... could disprove your god. Because it's not a serious conviction for you but a fashion statement.
            Is it possible for you to be angry, and yet wrong?
            >You did nothing the like. I'm done discussing with a larper. Have a nice day.
            God bless

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >neither proof nor disproof God
    I think it is a category error to speak of "proving God". Knowledge of God precedes the process of proof, and is the basis of rational thought.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Knowledge of God precedes the process of proof, and is the basis of rational thought.
      No it's not wtf. Knowledge of God is impossible.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        With men such things are impossible, but with God all things are possible.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >With men such things are impossible
          There you go.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right. If we were left to our own devices it would be impossible to know God, as it would be impossible to know anything else. But God has blessed us in that He by His omnipotent power has created us with the natural knowledge of Himself, as scripture says, "He is not far from any one of us".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >created us with the natural knowledge of Himself
            No he hasn't.For one because that's impossible. Even in your worldview he gave you reason to see the limits of our knowledge. This faux hyperpiety is just self aggrandisement and I assume you're an atheist larper.

            >Do you do it even when it makes you feel bad? Then it's not the highest good.
            Nonsequitur.

            The highest good is when moral good and happiness are the same.
            How could it be the HIGHEST good if it makes you unhappy to do it?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    These arguments fall apart when you remove the assumption that the only possible god is the abrahamic one, these kinds of "god is god by definition" wouldn't work with people of other religions, because they could just go "Yeah and it's MY guy, not your desert demon."

    And personally, I also don't think these kinds of arguments could ever convert an atheist to believe in god, they work more as mental barriers for people who already believe so when they begin to have doubts they can just recall a bunch of these bullshit arguments and convince themselves that their belief is more rational than it actually is.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >These arguments fall apart when you remove the assumption that the only possible god is the abrahamic one, these kinds of "god is god by definition" wouldn't work with people of other religions, because they could just go "Yeah and it's MY guy, not your desert demon."
      What? This doesn't change anything about the argument. And Kant's concept of God is strictly bound within the confines of pure reason.
      >And personally, I also don't think these kinds of arguments could ever convert an atheist to believe in god, they work more as mental barriers for people who already believe so when they begin to have doubts they can just recall a bunch of these bullshit arguments and convince themselves that their belief is more rational than it actually is.
      Well you're wrong about that too. It's why I believe in god.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Well you're wrong about that too. It's why I believe in god.

        Even if that was true I feel there's a lot more context to your choice of believing in god than simply hearing this argument though.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't do my duty therefore noone does.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we have a duty to believe in God
    Which one? Muslims and israelites believe in God, but I don't think you're referring to either of those two groups.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *