Why is Kant's practical reason for God wrong?

[MindForgedManacle]

I'm more interested in how he reconciles his epistemology with his metaphysical claims of god's existence.

Ooh, good question. I'll ask some philosophers around Twitter, they're generally helpful for me. Although, I've already asked her for help understanding Mathematical Platonism (a position she holds), so it may be a little while.

[genkaus]

If you're talking about Kant's idea that "ought implies can", that's in error because to say something is an ought is only to say that if it can be done it should be done. It doesn't address whether or not it actually can be done.

Actually, not addressing that is a cop-out to begin with. Because its common in many religious moralities and now, apparently Kant's morality. To set up a moral standard with a bunch of things that "ought to be done", but "can't be done" is stacking the game in your favor. You are setting up an impossible standard for someone to live by and then penalizing them for not living up to it.

[MindForgedManacle]

Actually, not addressing that is a cop-out to begin with. Because its common in many religious moralities and now, apparently Kant's morality. To set up a moral standard with a bunch of things that "ought to be done", but "can't be done" is stacking the game in your favor. You are setting up an impossible standard for someone to live by and then penalizing them for not living up to it.

Agreed. However, I'm betting Christians who are Kantians won't see it as such, because it would seem compatible with the Biblical doctrine of the sinful state of humanity. Specifically, the common evangelical belief that the Laws in the Old Testament were in fact not possible for a mere human to follow their entire life, and that such is a signpost to Jesus, who did manage to do so. Clearly, that's malicious beyond imagining, but it is a belief I myself had when I was an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian.

[filambee]

I finally found out why Kant's whole philosophical theory of Transcendental Idealism is wrong. He thinks that the real world or what he calls the noumenal can never be known. The only thing that can be known is what we perceive through functions in our mind like time, space, and cause and effect. He calls this the phenomenal world. He thinks that there is some sort of wall that divides the two worlds. If we have in our minds the innate ability to understand cause and effect, the noumenal would can affect the phenomenal world and therefore, we CAN know the real world.
Also, Hume denied any certainty of autonomous will. Kant had a big problem with that because he thinks that humans are special beings due to our ability to rationalize. Hume's conclusion of the problem of induction pretty much said that we are like any other animal in that we react to our environment instinctually and out of habit not because there is an actual cause and effect. Kant thought that he could put Hume and rationalism together to make Transcendental Idealism so that he could continue having his idea of free will.

Please tell me if this makes sense or not.