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.
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.
@@kaleidoscopicvoid Doesn't work like that, Kant has his starting point I have mine, we have similar logical systems that we presuppose the same basic shenanigans. He begins with the idea of "Known" and "Unknowable" in principle. "Unknowable is an unreachable category here that can't be address unless something about it is known which would make it "Known". Kant being trifling per usual.
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
There's a story in Irvin Yalom's 'Existential Psychotherapy' where he talks about snorkelling. He's looking at all the beautiful majesty that exists under water and, after a while, he feels dreadfully alone because he realises none of this is "beautiful". It just is - it's his mind that's ascribing all the meaning in the moment and yet, it's inherently empty. The water, the sealife, the vegetation, the state of the envronment...it's just as it is. We can get a sense of what we make of something, but we can never really know the thing itself.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 🥺.
Yes. Very clear and cogent explanation of a difficult topic. Kant is very abstract. Something about the nature of his language. The analogies were helpful. Thank you.
TO THINK someone thought so deeply on an abstract level 220 years ago that is relevant today. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, applied to computers, suggests that our understanding of tech is shaped by how we perceive and think about it, but we can’t fully grasp the true essence of its inner workings.
Anytime I talk about this with someone I always say imagine you could reduce yourself down to the tiniest particle and still possess consciousness. Imagine how different everything would appear. It would be alien, but just as real as before you were shrunk. As Huxley mused, "knowledge is a function of being." This same Kantian idea exists in some of the eastern philosophies, and it was Schopenhauer who noticed these similarities, and gave us his views on it, as well. Very interesting stuff. Thanks
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.
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.
Kant had to perhaps give this kind of answer to point to the validity of the question itself , given the fact that we had been told many times by many teachers and prophets that God exists . The better question to ask, but maybe not to a philosopher in general , would be "How does anyonec find or get to know God ?".
People have been finding God in many places and knowing IT in many ways. Sun, moon, volcanoes, mountains, animals, people, etc. The religions developed around those Gods gave people the way to know IT by worshiping, ceremonies, sacrifices, laws, etc. (all made up)
The comedy here happens when a mortal with a finite brain tries to “define” an omnipresent being and/or its intentions… Maybe that’s where Dante got his title?
@@chriswaters926 Descartes: Cogito, ergo sum= Je pense, donc je suis”.( I think, therefore I am). We are embodied spirit. I believe Descartes was more of a Dualist mind, but we humans are ‘ensouled’. Our bodies just help us get around the place!
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.
It is a good point you make but if God is communicating to people he is not doing a good job in sending a cohesive message to humans, we are all over the place about religions and Gods.
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 🥺.
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!
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.
@@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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
One might say Spinoza turns this on its head. God is everything you've ever seen, felt or touched. You are swimming in god. For all we know, god could be completely phenomena with no noumena. No inaccessible compartment. And since you can't formulate an idea that didn't come from your senses, every thought you've ever had is god. Whether good or -evil- bad.
The argument assumes existence in another category, so Kant is adding attribute/characteristic to God, and for that, God needs to exist, so it's presupposed.
Taking my lead from mystical philosophy, I would suggest that the reason we do not (usually) experience God is not because he is noumenal, but rather, it is us, human beings, that are noumenal. In other words, our lack of experience of God is due to the fact that we fail to understand what WE really are.
The closing words here, sort of evaluating Kant's view of God, I find neat: "A really interesting MOVE on the question…" It's like God is a chess-game, and Kant leads off with a stupendous gambit…
I have always thought that the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless, because we can not say anything relevant on WHAT God is. Maybe God is an older guy from the Bible, but he may well be just the energy and a set of laws of physics. Or something completely different. In any case, we are left alone with the question of the First Cause, why there exists anything at all? A simpleton will say: anything that exists was created by God, but who created God? If God is eternal, so could be material particles and energy
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.
The 5 senses do not determine everything we experience, and certainly not how we experience God. So the phenomenal/noumenal distinction, as it applies to the external senses, is irrelevant as to whether or not we can know God.
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)?
Kant's dodge. The popular claim is that God interacts with the material world and should therefore be detectable, just as radio waves, gamma radiation, and gravity waves are detectable. That burden of proof is not met. Kant would have the same thing to say about the noumenal dragon in my garage.
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 .
The important thing is that it makes no difference if God exists. Since the noumena cannot be experienced, and experience exhausts all possibilities for phenomenal humans, when we become men (or ladies) we should put away childish things. Be a brain! Your brain!
The noumena are real and exist ,like electromagnetic communication. But they can not be perceived by our senses unaided. This doesn't mean the noumena make no difference to reality. Actually your comment highlights an important fact about intellectual discourse: Emotion not reason is its primary driver.
@@alexwejs5595 by all means, belabour the obvious. Kant was simply ignorant of the power of the brain to decipher the causes of our experiences… and considered them to be out of reach. There is a problem with the concept “ultimate reality”, but relativity and quantum mechanics have clarified much that was wondered about. Most philosophy only advances the supercilious. For me, Kant does not undo the utility of Humes skepticism.
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
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.
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.
This is a really just John Hick's application of Kantian transcendentalism to the Divine. Except the Kant asserts the necessary existence of the noumenal as a preseupposition for the possibility of experience, much as Hick affirms the necessary existence of the Divine as a presupposition for the very possiiblity of Divine experience.
I would say a radio wave was noumenal but is not anymore since we have radios. The same holds for cosmic rays, alpha particles, electrons and a whole bunch of things for which we have detectors. Will we ever have a reliable detector for God? Probably not. Then he will always remain noumenal --- a new word for me and apparently also for the spelling checker on my computer --- and he is of no consequence to us.
There is only one requirement to know that God exists and that is "Be still and know that I am God" so Kant got that wrong, so Kant know is definitely Can know because God says so! If he had just spent some time being still.
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
Aquinas was able to say a whole lot about the nature of God, based on the simple observation that everything physical has a cause. Working backwards from that he was able to show that God must exist and that His essence is existence. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Kant!
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.
Like brain, heart also consist of neurones and has memory. It is mostly the heart--not the brain, kidney or liver--which sometimes fails on hearing a bad news of death or accident of a loved one. All good/bad wishes/thoughts originate in the heart and are referred to the brain for execution which does it only on the final approval by the soul which has the ability to judge its moral/social/legal implications elaborated by the brain and allows its execution once it decides to do so regardless whether good or bad. The performance of soul is a continuous function of multiple factors like the genes, knowledge (education), wealth, power, status, circumstances, environment and age to name some.
Hence the role of Jesus, the aspect of God that bridges that which is beyond space and time into the phenomenal -- created -- world of matter and energy, and ultimately man. As eloquently stated in many places: "By Him and in Him all things were created." Our perceptions are limited the way a two-dimensional being who lives in a world of circles and squares could never imagine or visualize a sphere, but only see an expanding and contracting circle as it moves through a two-dimensional plane. But ultimately "words cannot describe" ...
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.
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.
makes sense...our senses does limit what we can know out there...I've often thought of my brain/mind as simply a cookie cutter...as far as I know, the ultimate noumenal reality is just one singular amorphous goo...IDK.
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.
But we can say some things about a radio wave. Not color or smell, but frequency and amplitude and wavelength and it variability over time. These are things we can't sense with our eyes or ears or nose, but thanks to other measuring instruments (like radios) we know them nevertheless. So the problem "Does god exist" isn't the same. It's harder: we have no way of knowing anything about a god (him? her? -- it) at all. Nothing. Including whether god exists.
Really bad summary. Kant addressed a very precise concept of God, he gave very precise reasons why knowledge doesn't work for this concept, and then he provided (what he took as) purely practical reasons to believe in God as a supreme moral being.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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?
Our perspective, or should I say, most people's perspective of God is biased by the ideas and man made holy books. "God" or the architect of this universe/illusion/simulation is something we will never be able to comprehend. Not even the "gods" in this creation/matrix will ever understand that force. We're all slaves under an unimaginable force, it's his-story. Peace and love human fellows, enjoy the ride ✌️ ❤
R8chard Dawkins, what do you think? That would drive him potty. Actually I wondered where this was going, im going to go to bed thinking about this instead of sleeping. Here is the really interesting thing, , according to classic science, everything can be explained by material reductionism, however does matter exist?? Many believe that particles are energy strings. Nikola said to understand the universe we need to understand energy , frequency and vibrations.
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 argument sounds clever but one needs to step back and think about it. What he seems to be saying is that anything that can't be perceived may exist in some way. So if no one has actually seen or smelt the Easter Bunny, then it is possible that the Easter Bunny exists. This doesn't sound like an enormously helpful argument. Or, less facetiously, any God that can't be perceived may exist. So all kinds of different Gods could exist according to this argument. Secondly, why are we assuming that (the Christian) God is noumenal? If one reads the Old Testament, God interacts with many characters like Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, etc. Wasn't he supposed to have helped the Israelites to defeat their foes? Don't we pray to God because we hope he will have some impact on people's lives? What about angels? Noumenal or phenomenol?
Kant's position is worst than a "definite maybe". If God exists, then you cannot know him because of his quality of being "Noumenal". If God does not exist, then you cannot know because we gave God the quality of being "Noumenal".
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.
Wrong. Noumenal are real things that we can't experience. Smurfs and dragons are not real plus we can't experience them. God is real we just can't experience its Essence only its Energies.
@@fadeitluie9356 You can also experience the energy of fairies and kobolds, and even smurfs if you try hard enough. Dragons are much more difficult, though. See! I can make nonsensical claims, too.
@andreasplosky8516 wtf are you talking about brother 😂. Your lost. Energies of your Heart, Soul, Mind are real Nonumenal Energies. Smurfs aren't you needa study more theology and theosis. Your clueless brother
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)
Something - like God- could be BOTH phenomenal AND noumenal. He/ She /It could have aspects of both. So, Kant was wrong by assuming that God -if He/ She/ It exists was noumenal and therefore the question could not be definitively answered.
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.
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.
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.
A gift from God
"Maybe, lol."
Data no found! A slight smile.
Maybe. NOT! 😀
Which God
@@nataliarey1271If you want " data " then you are stuck in the phenomenal world.😂😂
Probably not.
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.
@@nuclearpotential6323 it isn't self-defeating.. You're actually the one doing what you claim Kant is doing.
@@kaleidoscopicvoid Doesn't work like that, Kant has his starting point I have mine, we have similar logical systems that we presuppose the same basic shenanigans. He begins with the idea of "Known" and "Unknowable" in principle. "Unknowable is an unreachable category here that can't be address unless something about it is known which would make it "Known". Kant being trifling per usual.
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
There's a story in Irvin Yalom's 'Existential Psychotherapy' where he talks about snorkelling. He's looking at all the beautiful majesty that exists under water and, after a while, he feels dreadfully alone because he realises none of this is "beautiful". It just is - it's his mind that's ascribing all the meaning in the moment and yet, it's inherently empty. The water, the sealife, the vegetation, the state of the envronment...it's just as it is. We can get a sense of what we make of something, but we can never really know the thing itself.
If God is (similar to) a radio wave, Jesus is certainly the radio
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.
@@Regreg347 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 :)
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?
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.
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.
What do you mean, "Of course, one would have to have a relatively thorough understanding of Christian philosophy first."?
Sounds like a bunch of over thinking to me.
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!
Yes. Very clear and cogent explanation of a difficult topic.
Kant is very abstract. Something about the nature of his language.
The analogies were helpful. Thank you.
TO THINK someone thought so deeply on an abstract level 220 years ago that is relevant today. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, applied to computers, suggests that our understanding of tech is shaped by how we perceive and think about it, but we can’t fully grasp the true essence of its inner workings.
The answer Kant would give would give is: I couldn’t know.
Anytime I talk about this with someone I always say imagine you could reduce yourself down to the tiniest particle and still possess consciousness. Imagine how different everything would appear. It would be alien, but just as real as before you were shrunk. As Huxley mused, "knowledge is a function of being." This same Kantian idea exists in some of the eastern philosophies, and it was Schopenhauer who noticed these similarities, and gave us his views on it, as well. Very interesting stuff. Thanks
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
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.
Bingo!!!
Kant had to perhaps give this kind of answer to point to the validity of the question itself , given the fact that we had been told many times by many teachers and prophets that God exists . The better question to ask, but maybe not to a philosopher in general , would be "How does anyonec find or get to know God ?".
People have been finding God in many places and knowing IT in many ways. Sun, moon, volcanoes, mountains, animals, people, etc. The religions developed around those Gods gave people the way to know IT by worshiping, ceremonies, sacrifices, laws, etc. (all made up)
The comedy here happens when a mortal with a finite brain tries to “define” an omnipresent being and/or its intentions…
Maybe that’s where Dante got his title?
There are days when I'm not even sure I exist.
Wasn’t it Kant that said “i think there for I am”
@@chriswaters926 Descartes: Cogito, ergo sum= Je pense, donc je suis”.( I think, therefore I am). We are embodied spirit. I believe Descartes was more of a Dualist mind, but we humans are ‘ensouled’. Our bodies just help us get around the place!
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.
It is a good point you make but if God is communicating to people he is not doing a good job in sending a cohesive message to humans, we are all over the place about religions and Gods.
Right, and surely there should be some kind of repeatable test to access him? Radio waves are _predictably_ accessed by tools like radio receivers.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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!
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.
"The preacher said a prayer
To save every single hair
On his head--
He's dead."~Emerson Lake and Palmer, _Tarkus_
A waste of talent and electricity
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.
One might say Spinoza turns this on its head.
God is everything you've ever seen, felt or touched.
You are swimming in god.
For all we know, god could be completely phenomena with no noumena.
No inaccessible compartment.
And since you can't formulate an idea that didn't come from your senses, every thought you've ever had is god.
Whether good or -evil- bad.
The argument assumes existence in another category, so Kant is adding attribute/characteristic to God, and for that, God needs to exist, so it's presupposed.
Taking my lead from mystical philosophy, I would suggest that the reason we do not (usually) experience God is not because he is noumenal, but rather, it is us, human beings, that are noumenal.
In other words, our lack of experience of God is due to the fact that we fail to understand what WE really are.
Some Saints have so similarly so said😊
@@James-ll3jb Indeed. No to forget the teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism which this approach.
The closing words here, sort of evaluating Kant's view of God, I find neat: "A really interesting MOVE on the question…" It's like God is a chess-game, and Kant leads off with a stupendous gambit…
Philosopher's ideas are often summarized as "moves." It's not to minimize.
I "Kant" tell you. LOL I did not see that coming.
I have always thought that the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless, because we can not say anything relevant on WHAT God is. Maybe God is an older guy from the Bible, but he may well be just the energy and a set of laws of physics. Or something completely different. In any case, we are left alone with the question of the First Cause, why there exists anything at all? A simpleton will say: anything that exists was created by God, but who created God? If God is eternal, so could be material particles and energy
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.
The 5 senses do not determine everything we experience, and certainly not how we experience God. So the phenomenal/noumenal distinction, as it applies to the external senses, is irrelevant as to whether or not we can know God.
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)?
Several minutes of listening time I won't get back.
Kant's dodge. The popular claim is that God interacts with the material world and should therefore be detectable, just as radio waves, gamma radiation, and gravity waves are detectable. That burden of proof is not met. Kant would have the same thing to say about the noumenal dragon in my garage.
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 .
The important thing is that it makes no difference if God exists. Since the noumena cannot be experienced, and experience exhausts all possibilities for phenomenal humans, when we become men (or ladies) we should put away childish things. Be a brain! Your brain!
The noumena are real and exist ,like electromagnetic communication. But they can not be perceived by our senses unaided. This doesn't mean the noumena make no difference to reality.
Actually your comment highlights an important fact about intellectual discourse: Emotion not reason is its primary driver.
@@alexwejs5595 by all means, belabour the obvious. Kant was simply ignorant of the power of the brain to decipher the causes of our experiences… and considered them to be out of reach. There is a problem with the concept “ultimate reality”, but relativity and quantum mechanics have clarified much that was wondered about. Most philosophy only advances the supercilious. For me, Kant does not undo the utility of Humes skepticism.
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
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.
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.
For some, miracles, intervention , intercession are known as luck/chance.
@@Alkes777 but patterns of miracles or interventions becomes so unlikely to be chance surely it is caused by God, surely he could see that
@@stephrichards4611 What patterns are you referring to?
This is a really just John Hick's application of Kantian transcendentalism to the Divine. Except the Kant asserts the necessary existence of the noumenal as a preseupposition for the possibility of experience, much as Hick affirms the necessary existence of the Divine as a presupposition for the very possiiblity of Divine experience.
I would say a radio wave was noumenal but is not anymore since we have radios. The same holds for cosmic rays, alpha particles, electrons and a whole bunch of things for which we have detectors. Will we ever have a reliable detector for God? Probably not. Then he will always remain noumenal --- a new word for me and apparently also for the spelling checker on my computer --- and he is of no consequence to us.
There is only one requirement to know that God exists and that is "Be still and know that I am God" so Kant got that wrong, so Kant know is definitely Can know because God says so! If he had just spent some time being still.
God in the Christian concept of the trinity is in fact noumenal is the aspect of the father but phenomenal in the aspect of Christ.
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
OK so God is like radio waves, gotcha
not really. radio waves can be measured with special tools. God on the other hand ...
Aquinas was able to say a whole lot about the nature of God, based on the simple observation that everything physical has a cause. Working backwards from that he was able to show that God must exist and that His essence is existence. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Kant!
Hmm. Was Kant a pipe smoker? 🤓
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.
Like brain, heart also consist of neurones and has memory.
It is mostly the heart--not the brain, kidney or liver--which sometimes fails on hearing a bad news of death or accident of a loved one.
All good/bad wishes/thoughts originate in the heart and are referred to the brain for execution which does it only on the final approval by the soul which has the ability to judge its moral/social/legal implications elaborated by the brain and allows its execution once it decides to do so regardless whether good or bad.
The performance of soul is a continuous function of multiple factors like the genes, knowledge (education), wealth, power, status, circumstances, environment and age to name some.
How did you do all that research of the soul? Can it be verify somehow or it is just to be taken on faith?
Copernicus didn't have a different way of thinking! We actually do revolve around the sun.
Hence the role of Jesus, the aspect of God that bridges that which is beyond space and time into the phenomenal -- created -- world of matter and energy, and ultimately man. As eloquently stated in many places: "By Him and in Him all things were created." Our perceptions are limited the way a two-dimensional being who lives in a world of circles and squares could never imagine or visualize a sphere, but only see an expanding and contracting circle as it moves through a two-dimensional plane. But ultimately "words cannot describe" ...
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.
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.
There r so many things given in holy scriptures now we knw after thousand of year
What is the speaker's name?
makes sense...our senses does limit what we can know out there...I've often thought of my brain/mind as simply a cookie cutter...as far as I know, the ultimate noumenal reality is just one singular amorphous goo...IDK.
When i get off my bike after a long ride ,one thing i know for sure is sometimes my ass hurts 🧐
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.
But we can say some things about a radio wave. Not color or smell, but frequency and amplitude and wavelength and it variability over time. These are things we can't sense with our eyes or ears or nose, but thanks to other measuring instruments (like radios) we know them nevertheless. So the problem "Does god exist" isn't the same. It's harder: we have no way of knowing anything about a god (him? her? -- it) at all. Nothing. Including whether god exists.
Really bad summary. Kant addressed a very precise concept of God, he gave very precise reasons why knowledge doesn't work for this concept, and then he provided (what he took as) purely practical reasons to believe in God as a supreme moral being.
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.
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.
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
It seems like scientists and the material world, the saints/ mystics are the Einstein’s of the spiritual life and their experience of God.
Live a good life and you’ll be rewarded
If there is no god you die with the satisfaction of having been a good person
Win win
God exists through personal intervention.
"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.
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 🙄
Also known as fallacy of incredulity.
JESUS CHRIST Loves y'all
If he loves so much he can come and tell it himself to me
Good explaination.
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?
Nice camera but you are wrong about Kant and radio waves
Our perspective, or should I say, most people's perspective of God is biased by the ideas and man made holy books. "God" or the architect of this universe/illusion/simulation is something we will never be able to comprehend. Not even the "gods" in this creation/matrix will ever understand that force. We're all slaves under an unimaginable force, it's his-story. Peace and love human fellows, enjoy the ride ✌️ ❤
If God is noumenal, can God make itself phenomenal if it wanted to?
R8chard Dawkins, what do you think?
That would drive him potty.
Actually I wondered where this was going, im going to go to bed thinking about this instead of sleeping.
Here is the really interesting thing, , according to classic science, everything can be explained by material reductionism, however does matter exist??
Many believe that particles are energy strings.
Nikola said to understand the universe we need to understand energy , frequency and vibrations.
I ❤this excellent explanation.It's much better than others. Thank you,Mr Kant
Thanks 🙏 short and easy way to understand.
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.
exactly
We are about to find out.
This argument sounds clever but one needs to step back and think about it. What he seems to be saying is that anything that can't be perceived may exist in some way. So if no one has actually seen or smelt the Easter Bunny, then it is possible that the Easter Bunny exists. This doesn't sound like an enormously helpful argument. Or, less facetiously, any God that can't be perceived may exist. So all kinds of different Gods could exist according to this argument.
Secondly, why are we assuming that (the Christian) God is noumenal? If one reads the Old Testament, God interacts with many characters like Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, etc. Wasn't he supposed to have helped the Israelites to defeat their foes? Don't we pray to God because we hope he will have some impact on people's lives? What about angels? Noumenal or phenomenol?
Kant's position is worst than a "definite maybe".
If God exists, then you cannot know him because of his quality of being "Noumenal".
If God does not exist, then you cannot know because we gave God the quality of being "Noumenal".
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.
So god is noumenal, just like smurfs and fairies and dragons.
Wrong. Noumenal are real things that we can't experience. Smurfs and dragons are not real plus we can't experience them. God is real we just can't experience its Essence only its Energies.
@@fadeitluie9356
You can also experience the energy of fairies and kobolds, and even smurfs if you try hard enough. Dragons are much more difficult, though.
See! I can make nonsensical claims, too.
@andreasplosky8516 wtf are you talking about brother 😂. Your lost. Energies of your Heart, Soul, Mind are real Nonumenal Energies. Smurfs aren't you needa study more theology and theosis. Your clueless brother
@@andreasplosky8516 LoL
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
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)
In some lectures on metaphysics Kant seems to agree with Swedenborg.
Something - like God- could be BOTH phenomenal AND noumenal. He/ She /It could have aspects of both. So, Kant was wrong by assuming that God -if He/ She/ It exists was noumenal and therefore the question could not be definitively answered.
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.
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?
What's the frequency Kenneth 😂
👍
Well then there's no reason for us to believe that we can't know anything in itself .so his idea is self refuting
Me, me, 🙋🏽♂️ I know the answer: God is as real as Yoda, right 😊
do not ask philosophers ,theologians or the praying class anything technical. They would not know.
Religion is art.
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.
It is phenomenal. You can experience him. Have you heard about Holy Spirit?
Yes that is a lie.