George Dance wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 1:06 pm, "George Dance" wrote:
>>
>>> Kant was not an agnostic. He said that "God" existed in the higher,
>>> 'noumenal' reality, and believed that he had proved that /a priori.
>
>
> Kant's moral proof of God's existence is in no sense intended to
> satisfy the
> requirements of the theoretical standpoint; rather it directs our
> attention away
> from the theoretical, away from scientific knowledge[....] He states
> this as
> plainly as one could expect in LPT 39:
> Thus all speculation depends...on the transcendental concept [of an
> absolutely necessary being]. But if we posit that it is not correct,
> would we
> then have to give up the knowledge of God? Not at all. For then we
> would
> only lack the scientific knowledge that God exists. But a great field
> would
> still remain to us, and this would be the belief or faith that God
> exists. This
> faith we will derive a priori from moral principles."
> http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KTS.html
What I want to know is, how does such a person get to be called a
philosopher? He has just rationalized the irrational with this
statement.
>> You'll find NOTHING different to that, written about Kant's irrational
>> position on the god crap anywhere, its as agnostic as one can get
>> George.
>
> There is nothing agnostic about 'proving' God from 'moral principles.'
>
>
>> Even the Randaphobic Termite twit fell over that mystical
>> transcendental crap of Kants.
>
> You and he agree? Why am I not surprised?
>
>> Do you wanna have a crack at explaining rationally that stupid Kantian
>> agnostic transcendental crap George?
>
> Like you, Kant thought he could settle the God question without any
> empirical knowledge, by an /a priori proof from moral principles.
> Since your moralities are different, you and he 'prove' contradictory
> conclusions; which shows the complete worthlessness of so-called 'moral
> proofs.'
>
>> Go on I dare ya, have a crack at explaining HOW man can have or how man
>> can claim ANY knowledge of anything non-sensory, anything that is NOT
>> existent as sensory matter.
>
> Why do you and Kant think you can prove or disprove *anything's*
> existence from moral principles rather than empirical evidence? Beats
> me.
>
>>> Kant insisted that his method was a superior form of reason.
>>
>> Well dont just leave it at that George, no-one is going to believe that
>> other than another mystic or fucked in the head Kantian, explain HOW
>> and why Kant arrived at that conclusion.
>
>> Give us a run down on what caused Kant to insist that he was soooooooo
>> stupid. What could Kant do in his method of gaining knowledge, about
>> ANY matter of sensory existents, that you cant?
>>
>>
>>> You're misrepresenting him, unfairly to
>>> agnostics.
>>
>> What makes an agnostic feel he ought be treated with any less
>> humiliation and riddicule than a full blown mystic George?
>
> Unlike Kantians, Gordgians, and other mystics, agnostics do not believe
> in conclusions for which there is no sensory evidence.
