RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 6:46 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2022 at 7:13 pm by R00tKiT.)
Kant on the teleological argument :
"This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect.
It is the oldest, the clearest, and the most accordant with the
common reason of mankind. It enlivens the study of nature,
just as it itself derives its existence and gains ever new vigour
from that source. It suggests ends and purposes, where our
observation would not have detected them by itself, and extends
our knowledge of nature by means of the guiding-concept of a
special unity, the principle of which is outside nature. This
knowledge again reacts on its cause, namely, upon the idea
which has led to it, and so strengthens the belief in a supreme
Author [of nature] that the belief acquires the force of an irre-
sistible conviction.
It would therefore not only be uncomforting but utterly
vain to attempt to diminish in any way the authority of this
argument."
http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm
Even though he rejected the argument, it's undeniable that this argument is much more appealing (even to the philosophers) than the ontological or the cosmolgical, both of which are more abstract and independent of our everyday experience with nature around us, if that makes sense..
Again, @Angrboda , I am not arguing here that Kant defended this argument. But you called it crap, that was unfair.
Does the TA prove that there is a unique, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being? No, not by itself, but this doesn't means it has zero argumentative force. In other words, it can be used in conjunction with other arguments to reach the ambitious conclusion of theism.
I have the perceptual experience of an external world, therefore I posit the existence of an external world.
There appears to be other people than myself, therefore it's reasonable to posit the existence of other people.
There appears to be design, therefore it's reasonable to posit a designer.
This seems to be the most natural and straightforward way to believe in God. Every other argument is contrived.
"This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect.
It is the oldest, the clearest, and the most accordant with the
common reason of mankind. It enlivens the study of nature,
just as it itself derives its existence and gains ever new vigour
from that source. It suggests ends and purposes, where our
observation would not have detected them by itself, and extends
our knowledge of nature by means of the guiding-concept of a
special unity, the principle of which is outside nature. This
knowledge again reacts on its cause, namely, upon the idea
which has led to it, and so strengthens the belief in a supreme
Author [of nature] that the belief acquires the force of an irre-
sistible conviction.
It would therefore not only be uncomforting but utterly
vain to attempt to diminish in any way the authority of this
argument."
http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm
Even though he rejected the argument, it's undeniable that this argument is much more appealing (even to the philosophers) than the ontological or the cosmolgical, both of which are more abstract and independent of our everyday experience with nature around us, if that makes sense..
Again, @Angrboda , I am not arguing here that Kant defended this argument. But you called it crap, that was unfair.
Does the TA prove that there is a unique, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being? No, not by itself, but this doesn't means it has zero argumentative force. In other words, it can be used in conjunction with other arguments to reach the ambitious conclusion of theism.
I have the perceptual experience of an external world, therefore I posit the existence of an external world.
There appears to be other people than myself, therefore it's reasonable to posit the existence of other people.
There appears to be design, therefore it's reasonable to posit a designer.
This seems to be the most natural and straightforward way to believe in God. Every other argument is contrived.
