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.
Alot of what Kantt says is strikingly similar to what the Buddha said. Not only this, but also Kant's morality and categorical imperative as well. The Buddha said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." -Samyutta Nikaya 35.23 (Sabba Sutta) The Buddha too said, we cannot really know whether something exists or not. We cannot experience anything as it truly is. We can only experience as much as our 5 senses can capture. We can only experience our own mental image of sights, sounds, scents, tastes, bodily feelings, and thoughts, but we cannot actually experience the object itself. The Buddha said, the whole world revolves around these 6. For example, the light rays which a human can see, are different from the visible spectrum of light rays another animal can see. The visible spectrum is very small compared to the full EM spectrum. The same goes for sound waves heard by the ear. There is more which your senses cannot detect, than they can detect. Even the hardness felt by the body, scents smelled by the nose, and tastes felt by the tongue, have their own range. So, when a human looks at an object. And a cat, and a dog, and a mouse all look at it. Because our eyes can see only different frequencies of light, we all see it differently. So then, we cannot say that we see it correctly. Because ultimately, it's all subjective. It's exactly like the example in the video, about how a camera takes a picture of a tree, and the camera represents it as 0's and 1's. But the tree is not actually 0's and 1's. The same thing is happening with us. So the Buddha says, we have not actually liked, or disliked anyone, or anything, or any place. When something comes to our senses, our mind creates a mental image of it (pali: mano rupa). And based on this mental image, the body or mind feels a sensation (Pali: vedana). And this sensation is either pleasant or unpleasant. And it is this sensation that people like, or dislike, not the external world itself. We only like or dislike our own mental images and thoughts, in other words. For example, When you read a story book. The book is just letters. But you become sad, or angry, or happy, according to the story. But where is the story? The story is actually just something your mind makes up. The story is not in the book. The book is just letters. The story is actually in your own mind. Your mind creates YOUR world around you. You are actually reacting to your own mind which is the 5 aggregates (panca upadana khandha) Dhammapada Verse 1 & 2: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. -Gautama Buddha
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.
God’s blessing, mercy, and peace be upon you, my beloved reader 😊. I am encouraging you to worship who created us to be in a wonderful place in the afterlife. I have the evidence that our Creator gave us to persuade us of his existence ❤️. Let me show you some shards of evidence. Firstly, research certain that there is innate feeling in the humans encouraging him to worship his god. secondly, doomsday achieves justice. thirdly, the atoms, creatures, universe, earth with their perfection and ecosystem make us sure that our god exists as chemistry doesn’t care about this stuff. Fourthly, the scientific, linguistic, parapsychological, and historical miracles in the Holy Quran make us certain that this book is from a mighty powerful God. fifth, No one discloses our creation but our God in the Quran. lastly, there isn’t anyone who could do the challenge of creating one chapter like the Quran that has 114 chapters because of its miracles in every aspect. Now, you must: ask your creator for guidance by raising your hand to the sky and asking him with the real intent of finding the truth. Research for these miracles by reading the Holy Quran. watch the religious comparisons and atheists enter Islam after answering their questions and showing them the evidence made by doctor Zakir naik. Ask Muslims to help you in your research. Finally, certain that our creator is more gracious and merciful than you can ever think 🥺.
As a Christian, I understand the whole thing. It makes sense, at least in the layman description. Of course, one would have to have a relatively thorough understanding of Christian philosophy first. It reminds me of an essay by CS Lewis, namely 'transposition', for example, or 'meditations from a toolshed'. It is as if there are two realities at play, one physical, the other metaphysical, where reality is a constant transpositioning from a higher medium into a lower medium. To reference the video, the tree represents one medium and the camera the lower, preceded and followed by higher and lower mediums. Another analogy would be of a house. There is the house we see made of 2x4s and concrete, and then there is the home imagined by the person wanting the house built. One physical, the other metaphysical, both being real since the idea is communicable. It's really no different than the relationship between emotions and language, or music to song lyrics.
Re your house analogy. First of all the second house is not real, it's imaginary. Second, if you think that a metaphysical house is as real as physical one than you might need to demonstrate how it can protect you against elements - in the real world. And thirdly; you admitting that god is just an idea and ideas do not have to describe real things. Gandalf is not a real wizard just because Tolkien imagined him and put in his book. In other words, just because *you think* that God is real does not make him real.
th-cam.com/video/xWOaG4Da9iA/w-d-xo.html wrong genesis th-cam.com/video/8r-e2NDSTuE/w-d-xo.html George Carlin on religion th-cam.com/video/sD0B-X9LJjs/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/gPOfurmrjxo/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/4DvlelPkWc0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/6EnNLXxgvQ8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/qeyGn_jCP14/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/QvjWMs6N7IU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/phwVzxP8xl0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/YLTDGpqVhcw/w-d-xo.html foolery th-cam.com/video/Iep4gnmJeRE/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/8HoNJVNbcS0/w-d-xo.html excellent th-cam.com/video/MsDl-EMomqM/w-d-xo.html 40 inaccuracies in the bible th-cam.com/video/nNQtt63c4SM/w-d-xo.html devil made me do it th-cam.com/video/aWCeGXRS-cQ/w-d-xo.html
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.
It makes perfect sense to me. After all its mentioned in the Bible " My ways are not your ways. " Now , this small statement make a whole big-tonne of sense. After all we humans ( most of us ) only take the things which are measurable and finite into account , disregarding the existence of many things beyond everything.
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.
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.
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)?
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 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?
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 🥺.
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.
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 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
Extra dimension is depth to Cartesian 2d thinking.And the other dimension is divergence and convergence to infinity and dot,the other dimension is matter and energy as conscious force and conscious energy.All in Veda esoteric thinking.Such as good conceptualization of consciousness by Sri Aurobindo
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!
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!
3:22 "That's hard to wrap our minds around ..." AKA It makes no common (or uncommon) sense! "That's okay, he's a philosopher, and that's what philosophers do." WHAT? This is so evil it deserves to be its own fallacy.
In the Bible God says I am that I am.The Abrahamic religions are at one with Kant.However,Christians,Muslims and Jews profess to understand something about God through their messengers and prophets,in the case of Christians through Jesus.Christians have debated about the humanness of Jesus,his divinity,his co substantially with God,whether he was human flesh at all.Kants duality of things between neumena and phenomena for all people curiously reflects the puzzle of the duality of Christ-the man-God thing.
God is a word, a noun. Languages are conventional phenomena. Every noun has its meaning (abstract or concrete). What meaning has the word God? Who or What is this? If we suggest that God is a moral lawgiver, so he/she/they is inside us. As a result, God isn't something/someone outside us, something inconceivable which is out of our reach and comprehension.
@@ExistenceUniversity Of course you can, you can know about a fire through its heat alone, you cannot say exactly what it is but you definately know it's not cold, and that's how we attain knowledge of God, not through his essence but through what He's energies are not.
@@sibberianno6333 You do realize that not all things that are hot are fires right? So feeling hot does not mean fire, in fact it could be hot water. But this is still a physical feeling, what physical feeling does God's essence feel like and where did he touch you?
@@sibberianno6333 Let me add that non-sense to the John Galt Speech about God: They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know [*by what his energy is not*], they say-and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
@@ExistenceUniversity Sure, that was what I was getting at, you can't know if it's water or fire or what it is exactly but you do know for sure it's a source of warmth. And I could describe you my personal experience of God's energies (not it's essence) but I think I'd be more useful to point you to neuroscientific studies of people having mystical experiences, I think that's a good approximation of how it feels like.
But I don't understand. If Kant says we can't experience God, then what about miracles and interventions/intercession in our lives? We can experience those. Or are we talking about the physical senses.. Or am I missing the point.
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.
I understand the analogy of radio waves, but radio waves can actually be sensed by the body. There is a therapy known as Diathermy which applies radio waves to the body in order to heat and soothe a targeted area. So I don't think this is a 100% perfect analogy, but I think it is good enough to give a quick explanation in a youtube video.
Message to all in general.... there is no valid category "Ding an sich" aka "the thing in itself." There is only the thing. Or, if necessary, the thing itself.
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.
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 .
2 things fill the mind with ever new & increasing admiration & awe, the more oftener & more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above & the moral law within. ~ Immanuel Kant ➖ “Do people not see that I have created them from a sperm drop, yet there they are, openly challenging Me.” (Quran 36:77) 👉 “…they say who will revive us when we are decayed bones. 👉Tell them, they will be revived by the One who produced them the first time.” (Quran 36:78-79). ⚡Read this: “If life & existence after worldly death seems unreal to you, look at yourself and the existence around you. If all this can happen once, it can happen again!” ➖ “They say there is nothing after this worldly life & we will not be resurrected. If only you could see right now how they will be standing before God ‘for accountability’ and He will ask them: Is this not the Truth?.” Quran 6:30
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.
If somebody throws a baseball at me, I may not experience it in its exact nature, however I will experience the consequences. And how could anybody be certain that if there is a god it's noumenal.
"Episteme" means superimposition, to place over. We superimpose theories and beliefs to "what is". Knowledge is always incomplete. Science, which is obviously necessary, has to do with measurement. "What is", which includes us, is immeasurable, unknowable. In this sense, we need not know "what is", because we are that. I am not two, one to know the other.
Kant says that noumenal things, that is, the way things are independent of our experience, allow us to percieve phenomental things, that is, the way things are when we experience them. So basically, we "filter" noumena through our reason and make phenomena; and Kant says that if the noumena didn't exist we wouldn't have that "raw material" to make phenomena out of, to use a crude but useful analogy. Otherwise, we cannot know anything more about them.
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.
I know that I could probably find the answer in Kant's Prolegomena or other texts, but maybe someone here will lead me astray. If God is Noumenal, like radio waves, it only means that he is not perceptible by our senses. But we can capture radio waves with the help of sensors and instruments, we just need to describe them in their own language, it is clear that we will not assign a color to the wave, but we can describe its wavelength. So why can't we describe the attributes of God in his natural language? In language such as love or grace, because these are the perceptions through which it is possible to experience God. And to say, God is good. Wouldn't that make him a Phenomenal then?
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.
Knowledge is always incomplete. There are theories and beliefs. They cannot completely explain a grain of sand or the totallity of life. Therefore, all of us are ignorant. That is a fact. When, really perceiving the limitations of knowledge, we ask ‘Who am I?’, are we not the immeasurable, the unknowable, the timeless? Is not the Universe also immeasurable, unknowable? This is the end of ignorance. This is the end of separation.
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? Will they not then believe? ~Quran 21:30: Dr. Alfred Kroner (a renowned geologists & the Chairman of the Department of Geology at Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Germany) He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.” Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”
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.
Yes, except we are told most of what we know. Someone else has done the experiments, someone else has had the experience, and as this video demonstrates someone else explains what someone else understands to be the truth. That is exactly how we deal with revelation. People have had religious experiences. People have seen God. People have witnessed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Does God exist? Yes, because people have witnessed and experienced his saving grace. If (philosophically) we don't have some faith in people's testimony, then we need to remove all the language arts departments, the history department and ultimately the science departments from all the schools (And ironically the philosophy departments). In fact, school itself would have no meaning because everything else could have never been received. Receive the gift of Truth and Light. Receive the revelation of God (especially in the saving Grace of Jesus Christ)
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.
Are they phenomenal tho? we presumably know that radio waves are electromagnetic waves, same as visible light, but unlike visible light we have no receptors for radio waves and therefore they should be nominal
@@lele-mw2nk They are still phenomenal. We discover radio waves from observing the phenomenal world and are therefore phenomenal. The explanation in the video is insufficient.
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.
@@tanura5830 you don’t get me at all do you? I’m saying to the video if Kant was not a believer why would he bring up the argument from morality to prove the existence of God. I’m saying he definitely believed in God!
Huh? Then how would anyone knew it if no one can really know it exists? I think he meant it don't exist since no one should know it exists. instead of saying it don't exist to fools at that dangerous times.
You're a very good explainer but I find the anachronism a bit jarring. In Kant's world there were no cameras or radios or knowledge of radio waves so he must have been thinking of other things that were noumenal, if there were any aside from God.
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.
Interesting to see you state God as “him”. It goes to show how conditioned we are. Knowledge at this time would say that God does not exist. Opinion would leave the door open to possibility.
Kant literally wrote: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith". I don't think it gets any more clear than that. God doesn't have an identity, God therefore does not exist. Knowledge therefore cannot find or prove God as it can only disprove God by the law of identity. Therefore, if you want to believe in God, you must find a way to renounce knowledge for faith, which is self-contradictory if you appeal to reality and knowledge to learn and know a method of knowing God, therefore you pretend reality isn't accessible. To fight this hard against reality for faith in God is pretty strong evidence for Kant's belief in God.
This is an Agnostics approach to God, it has been said an agnostic is a lazy Atheist. God is not Phenomenal, as we cannot see him. He is also not Noumenal, because by definition "Noumenal is a "real thing that cannot be experienced". God cannot be claimed Real firstly to later assert the term Noumenal. The same can be said of Bigfoot. Bigfoot is not Phenomenal, as we cannot see him or Noumenal. Yet i know that Bigfoot wearing a pink tutu while doing a pirouette is not standing behind me while i am surrounded by people in a crowd. Some things we can inferred.
Thank you for this interesting video. I think it would have been more accurate to say rationalism is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason rather than on intuition. Kant was wrong. You can talk about God but not in human language. Ontological mathematics is the way to understand God. O.M. is a tautological system which sums to zero and is entirely noumenal.
Light has no color either colors are just how our brains interpret different frequencies of the electro-magnetic radiation spectrum (a small portion of it that is)
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.
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...
Where does Kant say that "Phenomenal and Noumenal" are Two Different KINDS of THINGS? Kant "Never" says that. Noumenal is the Ground of the Phenomenal. Have you really read Kant's First Critique in depth, analytically? Don't misinterpret Kant, Please. The relationship between the Phenomenal and the Noumenal is extremely murky and messy. Kant himself was deeply troubled by it. whether it was an epistemic or ontological category- still unknown. One thing for sure, Kant introduced this as the Core element of his Transcendental Critical Philosophy in order to solve some of the Metaphysical Contradiction reason ran into, while engaging in metaphysics. Just like many atheists misinterpret Kant, let us not misinterpret him. Please either delete that material or correct it. thanks
It's a genius invention to keep people following the laws when no one is looking as well as giving people comfort and courage. However its still a invention of man
God has asked me to tell you this story "A naïve man who spent his time helping people and lived in a wealthy city distanced himself to a mountainous land. On his way there he kept helping people. He then falls ill and these thoughts come to him: What will I do afterwards? I will go to the top of the mountain and let the vultures eat me; I want no riches of this world; I am going to help my father, and I can work. He then goes back to the wealthy and miraculously finds work that allows to come out of his illness. He then understands. The vultures are the people he attracted and due to being naïve he did not know he attracted; he wants no riches of this world because he is human values in particular he is humble the greatest of virtues. He helps his father to die without suffering, and he works. In short God does exist and wants a peaceful world. This story explains the purpose of life.
"Maybe, lol."
Data no found! A slight smile.
Maybe. NOT! 😀
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.
Alot of what Kantt says is strikingly similar to what the Buddha said. Not only this, but also Kant's morality and categorical imperative as well.
The Buddha said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." -Samyutta Nikaya 35.23 (Sabba Sutta)
The Buddha too said, we cannot really know whether something exists or not. We cannot experience anything as it truly is. We can only experience as much as our 5 senses can capture. We can only experience our own mental image of sights, sounds, scents, tastes, bodily feelings, and thoughts, but we cannot actually experience the object itself. The Buddha said, the whole world revolves around these 6.
For example, the light rays which a human can see, are different from the visible spectrum of light rays another animal can see. The visible spectrum is very small compared to the full EM spectrum. The same goes for sound waves heard by the ear. There is more which your senses cannot detect, than they can detect. Even the hardness felt by the body, scents smelled by the nose, and tastes felt by the tongue, have their own range.
So, when a human looks at an object. And a cat, and a dog, and a mouse all look at it. Because our eyes can see only different frequencies of light, we all see it differently. So then, we cannot say that we see it correctly. Because ultimately, it's all subjective. It's exactly like the example in the video, about how a camera takes a picture of a tree, and the camera represents it as 0's and 1's. But the tree is not actually 0's and 1's. The same thing is happening with us.
So the Buddha says, we have not actually liked, or disliked anyone, or anything, or any place. When something comes to our senses, our mind creates a mental image of it (pali: mano rupa). And based on this mental image, the body or mind feels a sensation (Pali: vedana). And this sensation is either pleasant or unpleasant. And it is this sensation that people like, or dislike, not the external world itself. We only like or dislike our own mental images and thoughts, in other words.
For example, When you read a story book. The book is just letters. But you become sad, or angry, or happy, according to the story. But where is the story? The story is actually just something your mind makes up. The story is not in the book. The book is just letters. The story is actually in your own mind. Your mind creates YOUR world around you. You are actually reacting to your own mind which is the 5 aggregates (panca upadana khandha)
Dhammapada Verse 1 & 2: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. -Gautama Buddha
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.
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!
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.
th-cam.com/video/xWOaG4Da9iA/w-d-xo.html wrong genesis
th-cam.com/video/8r-e2NDSTuE/w-d-xo.html George Carlin on religion
th-cam.com/video/sD0B-X9LJjs/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/gPOfurmrjxo/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/4DvlelPkWc0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/6EnNLXxgvQ8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/qeyGn_jCP14/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/QvjWMs6N7IU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/phwVzxP8xl0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/YLTDGpqVhcw/w-d-xo.html foolery
th-cam.com/video/Iep4gnmJeRE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/8HoNJVNbcS0/w-d-xo.html excellent
th-cam.com/video/MsDl-EMomqM/w-d-xo.html 40 inaccuracies in the bible
th-cam.com/video/nNQtt63c4SM/w-d-xo.html devil made me do it
th-cam.com/video/aWCeGXRS-cQ/w-d-xo.html
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.
@@donfette5301 I have also wondered about these analogies like radio waves don't smell. This man does not prove the existence of a god or gods.
It makes perfect sense to me. After all its mentioned in the Bible " My ways are not your ways. "
Now , this small statement make a whole big-tonne of sense. After all we humans ( most of us ) only take the things which are measurable and finite into account , disregarding the existence of many things beyond everything.
@Orando de Dia Yes. Indeed brother.
The bible isnt a reliable source of knowledge
@@fredriksvard2603 Ok brother.
A man wrote your ways are not my ways. Some man somewhere wrote eve
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.
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.
@@reggy526 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 :)
Thanks 🙏 short and easy way to understand.
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)?
Good explaination.
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 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?
JESUS CHRIST Loves y'all
i get tlhis words in a way that reality becomes whatever you think about it cause reality can be anything you want.
What about when reality hits you in the face?
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 God is (similar to) a radio wave, Jesus is certainly the radio
Great explanation!
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?
What is the speaker's name?
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?
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
Thanks!
Extra dimension is depth to Cartesian 2d thinking.And the other dimension is divergence and convergence to infinity and dot,the other dimension is matter and energy as conscious force and conscious energy.All in Veda esoteric thinking.Such as good conceptualization of consciousness by Sri Aurobindo
In some lectures on metaphysics Kant seems to agree with Swedenborg.
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!
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
OK so God is like radio waves, gotcha
3:22
"That's hard to wrap our minds around ..."
AKA It makes no common (or uncommon) sense!
"That's okay, he's a philosopher, and that's what philosophers do."
WHAT?
This is so evil it deserves to be its own fallacy.
In the Bible God says I am that I am.The Abrahamic religions are at one with Kant.However,Christians,Muslims and Jews profess to understand something about God through their messengers and prophets,in the case of Christians through Jesus.Christians have debated about the humanness of Jesus,his divinity,his co substantially with God,whether he was human flesh at all.Kants duality of things between neumena and phenomena for all people curiously reflects the puzzle of the duality of Christ-the man-God thing.
God is a word, a noun. Languages are conventional phenomena. Every noun has its meaning (abstract or concrete). What meaning has the word God? Who or What is this? If we suggest that God is a moral lawgiver, so he/she/they is inside us. As a result, God isn't something/someone outside us, something inconceivable which is out of our reach and comprehension.
Simply put we cannot know God in his essence, but we know him and his energies. Saint Gregory Palomar’s
His essence would be his identity. If you cannot know his essence or identity, you cannot know him or his "energies"
@@ExistenceUniversity Of course you can, you can know about a fire through its heat alone, you cannot say exactly what it is but you definately know it's not cold, and that's how we attain knowledge of God, not through his essence but through what He's energies are not.
@@sibberianno6333 You do realize that not all things that are hot are fires right? So feeling hot does not mean fire, in fact it could be hot water. But this is still a physical feeling, what physical feeling does God's essence feel like and where did he touch you?
@@sibberianno6333 Let me add that non-sense to the John Galt Speech about God:
They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know [*by what his energy is not*], they say-and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
@@ExistenceUniversity Sure, that was what I was getting at, you can't know if it's water or fire or what it is exactly but you do know for sure it's a source of warmth. And I could describe you my personal experience of God's energies (not it's essence) but I think I'd be more useful to point you to neuroscientific studies of people having mystical experiences, I think that's a good approximation of how it feels like.
But I don't understand. If Kant says we can't experience God, then what about miracles and interventions/intercession in our lives? We can experience those. Or are we talking about the physical senses.. Or am I missing the point.
Good one. Satire rules.
you explain it well.
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.
I understand the analogy of radio waves, but radio waves can actually be sensed by the body. There is a therapy known as Diathermy which applies radio waves to the body in order to heat and soothe a targeted area. So I don't think this is a 100% perfect analogy, but I think it is good enough to give a quick explanation in a youtube video.
It seems like scientists and the material world, the saints/ mystics are the Einstein’s of the spiritual life and their experience of God.
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
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.
Message to all in general.... there is no valid category "Ding an sich" aka "the thing in itself."
There is only the thing.
Or, if necessary, the thing itself.
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.
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 .
2 things fill the mind with ever new & increasing admiration & awe, the more oftener & more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above & the moral law within. ~ Immanuel Kant
➖
“Do people not see that I have created them from a sperm drop, yet there they are, openly challenging Me.” (Quran 36:77)
👉 “…they say who will revive us when we are decayed bones. 👉Tell them, they will be revived by the One who produced them the first time.” (Quran 36:78-79).
⚡Read this: “If life & existence after worldly death seems unreal to you, look at yourself and the existence around you. If all this can happen once, it can happen again!”
➖
“They say there is nothing after this worldly life & we will not be resurrected. If only you could see right now how they will be standing before God ‘for accountability’ and He will ask them: Is this not the Truth?.” Quran 6:30
Meh
It makes Senses 🙄
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.
If somebody throws a baseball at me, I may not experience it in its exact nature, however I will experience the consequences. And how could anybody be certain that if there is a god it's noumenal.
"Episteme" means superimposition, to place over. We superimpose theories and beliefs to "what is". Knowledge is always incomplete. Science, which is obviously necessary, has to do with measurement. "What is", which includes us, is immeasurable, unknowable. In this sense, we need not know "what is", because we are that. I am not two, one to know the other.
So, how can we confirm the existence of other noumenal “things”…?
Kant says that noumenal things, that is, the way things are independent of our experience, allow us to percieve phenomental things, that is, the way things are when we experience them. So basically, we "filter" noumena through our reason and make phenomena; and Kant says that if the noumena didn't exist we wouldn't have that "raw material" to make phenomena out of, to use a crude but useful analogy. Otherwise, we cannot know anything more about them.
@@sibberianno6333 - True, I accept that - my question is more about confirmation than just acceptance.
If God is noumenal, can God make itself phenomenal if it wanted to?
Wow good stuff
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.
I know that I could probably find the answer in Kant's Prolegomena or other texts, but maybe someone here will lead me astray. If God is Noumenal, like radio waves, it only means that he is not perceptible by our senses. But we can capture radio waves with the help of sensors and instruments, we just need to describe them in their own language, it is clear that we will not assign a color to the wave, but we can describe its wavelength. So why can't we describe the attributes of God in his natural language? In language such as love or grace, because these are the perceptions through which it is possible to experience God. And to say, God is good. Wouldn't that make him a Phenomenal then?
It is phenomenal. You can experience him. Have you heard about Holy Spirit?
Yes that is a lie.
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.
You can know God exists by asking him to appear. Pray that you are worthy to stand before God Gospel of Timothy
Don't take apocrypha seriously
Knowledge is always incomplete. There are theories and beliefs. They cannot completely explain a grain of sand or the totallity of life. Therefore, all of us are ignorant. That is a fact.
When, really perceiving the limitations of knowledge, we ask ‘Who am I?’, are we not the immeasurable, the unknowable, the timeless? Is not the Universe also immeasurable, unknowable?
This is the end of ignorance. This is the end of separation.
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? Will they not then believe?
~Quran 21:30:
Dr. Alfred Kroner (a renowned geologists & the Chairman of the Department of Geology at Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Germany)
He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.”
Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”
what a great explanation!!!!!!!!!!!
Sheesh
Sheesh
Sheesh
Sheesh
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.
Yes, except we are told most of what we know. Someone else has done the experiments, someone else has had the experience, and as this video demonstrates someone else explains what someone else understands to be the truth. That is exactly how we deal with revelation. People have had religious experiences. People have seen God. People have witnessed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Does God exist? Yes, because people have witnessed and experienced his saving grace. If (philosophically) we don't have some faith in people's testimony, then we need to remove all the language arts departments, the history department and ultimately the science departments from all the schools (And ironically the philosophy departments). In fact, school itself would have no meaning because everything else could have never been received. Receive the gift of Truth and Light. Receive the revelation of God (especially in the saving Grace of Jesus Christ)
Here the question is really "Does god exist for who?"
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.
if god is not conscious, then there is no god,
only a generative principle.
Nice camera but you are wrong about Kant and radio waves
God exists through personal intervention.
Overall a good explanation, but you failed to mention one important thing: radio waves themselves are phenomenal.
Are they phenomenal tho? we presumably know that radio waves are electromagnetic waves, same as visible light, but unlike visible light we have no receptors for radio waves and therefore they should be nominal
@@lele-mw2nk They are still phenomenal. We discover radio waves from observing the phenomenal world and are therefore phenomenal. The explanation in the video is insufficient.
@@lele-mw2nkYES. 1000% nounmenal. Come on, man. That’s Kant 101. Do better.
So god is noumenal, just like smurfs and fairies and dragons.
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.
nice
william craig
Well then there's no reason for us to believe that we can't know anything in itself .so his idea is self refuting
How do you justify this with the “argument form morality” by Emmanuel Kant?
atheism is not denying god. Atheism is lack of belief in god. So atheism is logical.
@@tanura5830 when someone tries to prove sth he/she believes in it
@@alirezakhabir7180 Atheism doesnt try to prove anything/
@@tanura5830 you don’t get me at all do you? I’m saying to the video if Kant was not a believer why would he bring up the argument from morality to prove the existence of God. I’m saying he definitely believed in God!
@@alirezakhabir7180 yes Kant believes in God
Religion is art.
That would be him
Huh? Then how would anyone knew it if no one can really know it exists? I think he meant it don't exist since no one should know it exists. instead of saying it don't exist to fools at that dangerous times.
Wait... How is proposing, "we can't propose anything meaningful about God," not itself proposing something meaningful about God? 🤨
You're a very good explainer but I find the anachronism a bit jarring. In Kant's world there were no cameras or radios or knowledge of radio waves so he must have been thinking of other things that were noumenal, if there were any aside from God.
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.
very cool, many thanks)))))
حلوه القناة
Interesting to see you state God as “him”. It goes to show how conditioned we are. Knowledge at this time would say that God does not exist. Opinion would leave the door open to possibility.
god is a man
Kant literally wrote: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith".
I don't think it gets any more clear than that. God doesn't have an identity, God therefore does not exist. Knowledge therefore cannot find or prove God as it can only disprove God by the law of identity. Therefore, if you want to believe in God, you must find a way to renounce knowledge for faith, which is self-contradictory if you appeal to reality and knowledge to learn and know a method of knowing God, therefore you pretend reality isn't accessible.
To fight this hard against reality for faith in God is pretty strong evidence for Kant's belief in God.
"God doesn't have an identity, God therefore does not exist." - this is some outlandish claim, if God exists, he has an identity.
@@franesustic988 he doesn't exist though
This is an Agnostics approach to God, it has been said an agnostic is a lazy Atheist. God is not Phenomenal, as we cannot see him. He is also not Noumenal, because by definition "Noumenal is a "real thing that cannot be experienced". God cannot be claimed Real firstly to later assert the term Noumenal. The same can be said of Bigfoot. Bigfoot is not Phenomenal, as we cannot see him or Noumenal. Yet i know that Bigfoot wearing a pink tutu while doing a pirouette is not standing behind me while i am surrounded by people in a crowd. Some things we can inferred.
If you want to know if Bigfoot exists, you go searching for Bigfoot.
Thank you for this interesting video. I think it would have been more accurate to say rationalism is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason rather than on intuition. Kant was wrong. You can talk about God but not in human language. Ontological mathematics is the way to understand God. O.M. is a tautological system which sums to zero and is entirely noumenal.
Kant didn't believe in divine self-revelation, then?
Light has no color either colors are just how our brains interpret different frequencies of the electro-magnetic radiation spectrum (a small portion of it that is)
@Orando de Dia Exaclty! Now crawl back to your ever receding pocket of ignorance...
@Orando de Dia no
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.
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?
Essentially solipsism?
Watched all of it 2:42
Silly because then nothing exists
Where does Kant say that "Phenomenal and Noumenal" are Two Different KINDS of THINGS? Kant "Never" says that. Noumenal is the Ground of the Phenomenal. Have you really read Kant's First Critique in depth, analytically? Don't misinterpret Kant, Please. The relationship between the Phenomenal and the Noumenal is extremely murky and messy. Kant himself was deeply troubled by it. whether it was an epistemic or ontological category- still unknown. One thing for sure, Kant introduced this as the Core element of his Transcendental Critical Philosophy in order to solve some of the Metaphysical Contradiction reason ran into, while engaging in metaphysics. Just like many atheists misinterpret Kant, let us not misinterpret him. Please either delete that material or correct it. thanks
He says , he had to open up a space for god,and this makes him immoral and a deceiver, he served the church not the truth.
Where? @@maximilyen
Kant was not a philosopher...neither was Rousseau or Hegel
No gods exist nor supernatural nor divive and devine.
Kant is very important to philosophy professors because thinking he is relevant makes them feel relevant.
God it was a fairy tail like the Looney tuney cartoons only existing the mind of the con man the lucrative future of the mañana. That make no sense
Primero que nada aprende a escribir
Segundo, pruébalo
Que no has visto todos los argumentos para decir que Dios existe?
It's a genius invention to keep people following the laws when no one is looking as well as giving people comfort and courage. However its still a invention of man
@@stephenhill3286 yes ... first brought on by our ignorance of nature. Then used by a few that understood nature, too manipulate the mass.
Kant served the church instead of truth ,so he is immoral.
God exist believable.
As for Jesus and the whole giving your life to him? 🥴
God has asked me to tell you this story "A naïve man who spent his time helping people and lived in a wealthy city distanced himself to a mountainous land. On his way there he kept helping people. He then falls ill and these thoughts come to him: What will I do afterwards? I will go to the top of the mountain and let the vultures eat me; I want no riches of this world; I am going to help my father, and I can work. He then goes back to the wealthy and miraculously finds work that allows to come out of his illness. He then understands. The vultures are the people he attracted and due to being naïve he did not know he attracted; he wants no riches of this world because he is human values in particular he is humble the greatest of virtues. He helps his father to die without suffering, and he works. In short God does exist and wants a peaceful world. This story explains the purpose of life.