Hello, Hello, God doing his best to try and smite us. I think working and we are back. If that's the best God has to offer, then I think he needs to try a little bit harder. You're not very good God, are you saying no? Sir? Ee? For the third time, I'm going to bring queuing to have the conversation about Kant's reputation of the arguments for the existence of God. Q. How are you? Yep? Hey, So I wanted to call in and talk about Kant's various
different proofs or reputations against the proof of the proof of God. So I haven't seeing any of the previous episodes talk about this. Are you guys familiar with this? Vaguely? It's not something I've studied in depth. Yeah, I'm not familiar with it. Overread a little bit. Is essentially he started off with the kind of arguing against the ontological talor or teleological all those things
as invalid, and then kind of developed a little bit further. But you you go into it and tell us what you know, what it was specifically, I wanted to talk about fill in the gaps. Yeah, uh, so it's been a while since I talked about this. Uh, with other people quite a few years since I was in the in the university. So so I, Richard, you're right. So he has a reputation of different main proof types of proofs to God. And it's interesting because a lot of
it is stuff that we hear when people call in. It's just you know, it's just a different name. So. Uh. The ontological argument is basically the argument that God is perfect, so he must exist kind of thing. Uh. And then there's a cosmological argument, which is basically the klom argument, right, the column arguments always called a column cosmological argument. Uh. And the third one is the teler lot to go on, which says,
you know if sorry. The third ist uh, the teiological argument, which basically said, there's some purpose that we need to that that's out there, and so for that purpose, there must be a God. Right.
So so those are the three types. And you hear one, you know, some flavor of this use by the all the time follow so far okay, Yeah, So I just want to kind of go over this so that or kind of give different examples of these and and kind of using examples of you know what I've heard in some of the past shows, and then give
what CON's response to this will be. And one thing to know is, you know, cons is a very famous German idealist, so he believes in, you know, things that are beyond our sensus, you know, just these ideal things, and in a certain sense he kind of considers, you know, that to be kind of gods from And his whole point is that you really can't have access to that. You know what he calls the nama the now omen o round, which is you know, where perfect forms,
et cetera. You know, it's kind of similar to Plato's forms would exist. So he says that doesn't exist, and what we have is access to the phenomena, which is what we can see and sense, et cetera. And he can kill just quickly before sorry, just quickly before you jump into this. What can I ask you what your kind of position in on this? Is this something you agree with you agree with Camp? Or is do you have the disagree with him and have your own kind of arguments against these
things. I'm just interested on your own personal position in this. Yep, Yeah, so I was really into Content. In fact, I did my undergrad thesis on him, but not on his on his ethics or you know his proof of God, but at the time, you know, I was really into his refutation. But one thing to consider is that cont actually goes and tries to say that there is a God. So Content is not an atheist, he's a theist. So for me personally, I feel I'm a
hard atheist. I do not believe that God exists. So that's my position. Okay, So once you give us one one rejection of the one of the arguments for God, wing to talk about that, yeah, yeah, yeah, So, uh, the one I like the best is this the argument against the ontological argument. So you know, the argument again is to say that you know that God is being perfect, that if God did not exist, it would not be perfect. So thereby God has to exist simply
because of his perfection. And the kind of the simple repute refutation of that, you know, obviously there's more is that existence is not a product, meaning that existence is not a property that you can assign to to a god. It's basically a state. So you have an existential state, so you could have a God that you have all the properties of perfection, but existence is not a property, so it's not one of it. The example is, like you know, he has two. He talks about two different types
of judgments. One is the analytic judgment, where the predicate is contained in the subject. So the example is, you know, all bachelors are unmarried. The very nature of being a bachelor comes with it, you know, it being unmarried, being on men. And then there's a synthetic judgment where you're adding something to you know, adding a predicate to the subject. So the example is, you know, the cat is on the mat, so the it being on the mat is not part of the property of the cat.
And what contest saying is that God exists is not bachelors are on Mary's a cat is on the map. Type of judgment that your concept of God, and if you add to it, or if you say it exists, you are adding something to it that's not part of that. So it's not
part of the antology. Yeah, and I think I think that that kind of that that rests quite well with humans kind of ideas about rejection of God as well, because in Hume we get the idea that you know, in essentially in humans kind of ideas are that we get what comes into our mind is what comes in from outside is real, and we cannot imagine something that
we haven't got experience of. Therefore we can't have a we can't have this this idea of this perfect God because all we're doing is we can't we've never seen this perfection. So what we're doing is we're just magnifying these qualities of good that we do know to this ultimate thing. And therefore this perfect being that we imagine as God cannot exist. And I think that matters quite well with what you've just said about can. I don't know what you think about
that. I'd like to have your kind of feedback on that. So it's interesting because you know, Kant his critique of Peoriason, he begins it by basically saying that data Hume walk him up from his slumber to you know, push him to write that that huge treatise. So there is a connection between Kant and Hume, but Kant is you could almost say, he's the opposite extreme, although you know, as he pointed out that there are some similarities. Human never say that there is this kind of this realm, this you
know, essentially kind of sort of a spiritual around that the phenomena. Human never say that. But all of Kant's philosophy revolved around Yeah, Jim, any thoughts, No, I mean, I don't hear anything I disagree with or can add to. You know, theological argument is, I think ridiculous on its face. I can't imagine a greater God than the one in the Bible, and a greater God than most Christians attribute to should I don't see how that means that that God actually exists. I don't see how you get
monotheism out of that either. But those are completely different questions for going on what we can imagine. But yeah, yeah, I mean I think I think this is really interesting because, as you said, I, you know, I did have leanings towards them shall we see, But also I believed
in things like free will and things like that. So it's really interesting when you get philosophers like Comets who kind of will on one end of the spectrum we would probably agree with, then on the other end of the spectrum we would probably disagree with. And it's great diving into those guys, Like I say, it's not someone I've personally looked into very much. I've just kind of read brief overviews and whatnot. So it's great to have a call talking
specifically about Kant's philosophy. I was wondering, what if you had any criticisms of the things like free will that he did accept and the belief in God and things if you have it, because you're obviously you know, you seem to know quite a lot about Can and you seem to be very enemored with some of his arguments. So what about those that you disagree with from him?
Well, I mean, I disagree with the proof that he is or it's not really a proof, but how he sort of demonstrates that God exists and the reason why I disagree with it, and you know, it's something that I didn't know at the time, but he basically has a re self argument for for God, and and he kind of he puts it as basically, you know, as part of this ethics his morality that he feels that there must be a God. You have to kind of presuppose a god for
there to be this objective deontological morality. So if there and it's not necessarily a Christian God, but you know, the idea that there is something beyond the phenomena that's there that you know, provides the duty the onus and and also on the free will side that you know, it's it's kind of coming from that, you know that God. Uh, and you can't really have this a moral action that's done in free will unless there is God. So
I don't agree with that. Isn't it great that we get these kind of not and I'm not just talking about your kind of let's face it, ship YouTube philosophers, but even your classical philosophers who were out there and you get this kind of thing. And even and those that believe in God seem to
fall into two categories. They seem to fall into those that will either presuppose God exists at the beginning or kind of when you get these arguments from design and they go through these you know, Anselm did it where you go through these elaborate arguments of you know, you know, the world looks like it was designed, et cetera, and then at the end with well it must be God. Everybody knows it's got don't they. And it's just like it's
just like a really crap ending. There's no thought being put into it.
It's just a supposition that I, of all these candidate designers, if even if we said for the sake of argument the world had been designed of all the candidate designers we have, whether it's you know, some kind some kind of alien species that have designed the universe in a kind of contact way, like in Carl Sagan's novel, or whether it's whether it's these whether it's like me and Jim talked about, I think last time when we were on the
show, this idea of a synthetic universe, like what's the word I'm looking for, This created like from a computer simulation, the simulation type universe. And we've got these different candidates, and yet these great philosophers who are theists seem to disregard all these other candidate explanations just in favor of well, it's God though in it. That's it. It's just God, and that's what they fall back on. And I find that really kind of I find it
frustrating in one light, but I find it really amusing in another. They've like put all these thought into these elaborate arguments and then just kind of rest on this and they're just pretty crap. Just conclusion. Yeah, I mean
that's what I see. I mean when I watched some of these videos and and also in the comments, you know, I definitely see a lot of theists who you know, try to make an argument, but at the end of the day, it just comes down to I think I feel like there's a God, so that you know, that's that's what I will believe, So you know, there's that. You know, they basically don't care that it's a crap argument as long as you know it confirms their you know,
their viewpoint. It's almost like they've been sold on the idea of God and then try to use reason to justify their quote unquote purchase of the God's concepts, right, rather than starting from a clean slate and working their way to God there, they don't ever surely do that. They just seem to start with God and then work backwards and that's never going to work. I know, we know that that's the case for you. I'm like Craig right,
because he's admitted it in public multiple cases. Is he got sold on the idea of God and then he uses the column uh to justify his belief rather than the other direction. So yeah, it's amazing, absolutely amazing. Yeah. I mean on the other side too, I mean I see a lot of atheas who try to argue against God and you know, struggle themselves because
they're you know, they really can't provide a really good argument. And so what I see mostly is you atheists basically saying that, well, you have to convince me, so you know, the burden of proof is on you, and you know you're sort of at an impast because and that Tears would say, you know, you know, you have to still give me a reason why I think there's no God, and you don't get anywhere. Yeah, I think this is this is a really interesting point to make because and
you know it, it's not this is definition of atheism thing. It's not something I like talking about a lot, but I think in this, in this particular instance, it's a really good point. And because what we're talking about now here is like we're talking about from the philosophical philosophical standpoint now in everyday life, when you know, this conversation comes open even on this show, when people call in and ask about atheism and things, my my normal
responses just simply that I don't believe in God because I'm not. I'm not going to argue for fucking twenty minutes about the meaning of the word atheism, because it is a word that has different meanings, and all of them legitimate, legitimately. So I think, you know, what you've just said is
a good standpoint because I've just mentioned and it's a good counterbalance too. I've just mentioned that we have a lot of theists out there who watch YouTube videos and become like really crap internet you know philosophers, because I've watched a couple of YouTube videos. This applies to the other side as well, and you know, and you know, our side of the of the fence has the
same thing. You know, I see quite a lot in these conversations that I have people I have really really good conversations with, you know, theists
about philosophy. You know, theists so like yourself, have done degrees in it, but from the other side of the fence, and we have those people I tend to have really good conversations with because that's my field of study anyway, that's my background, and so we have really good, just genuinely good, honest conversations about it. You also have theorists who come up and watch, you know, watch a couple of William Lane Craig videos or you
know, these other crap apologists so are out there and they come up with the same crap arguments they do, and they've not put any thought into it. They've not thought about it. And you know, you can refuse God if you know the arguments, but if you've just watched a couple of videos, you are limited to send this again as stress. Is nothing wrong at all with the definition of atheism that says, you know, I just don't accept God. That's my position on it. There's nothing wrong with that at
all. But if you're having a philosophical conversation and you're kind of going down that route, you're going to be left kind of in deep water, because you know, you can have a proper philosophical conversation and not have to go
there. You can you can go into the why you don't believe into in God and things like that, and it's really really important, Jim you so, I mean also in many cases, like with callers that we've gotten in the past, when you get them on their back foot and really get them into a corner, one of the tactics is to shift the topic, change the topic. And so one of the topics one of the ways they'll shift the topic is to simply say, well, you can't prove it doesn't exist,
or you know, prove he doesn't exist. That that is a change of topic to avoid a being in a corner where they either have to admit what they believe makes no sense or you know, concede whatever point you're trying to make right, and they don't want to do that, they can't do
that in their head, so they'll change the topic. And so I see that definition of atheism as a tactic to stay on target and to stay on topic, because I mean, you can watch a lot of these types of shows and sometimes the caller is able to run the host around in circles. They never really stay on topic. And I'm guilty of that too, of not keeping people on topic, especially when you've got them at a point where
they have to concede a point or concede that they're being illogical. Right, So sometimes it's a conversational it's a conversational rebuttal, not a philosophical rebuttal, but it's a conversation rebuttal to a shift in topic, so they don't have to admit that they're being a logical or concede your point. So sometimes it's
that it's and that's two different things. I think we have to realize there's philosophical argument and then there's conversational argument styles and tactics that can be used, and they aren't the same. And the conversational ones don't have anyone near the rigor of the philosophical ones, but they're the ones we have more often than we do philosophical ones. So I think sometimes just kind of remember that too, is it's it's a tactic, conversational tactic to get to get out of
a corner. Yeah, I agree, Yeah, I'll just I'll just add one last thing before I believe. But you know, basically, when you have a theist and atheist, and theists basically let's say that they don't really have a good argument, but you know, ultimately it's just their feeling.
And then you have an atheist who you know doesn't believe a God because there's no evidence for it, and you can kind of see that from for both of them, it's essentially a belief state right until someone can provide something more
concrete. And so when a theist provides, you know, some you know, not so good argument from their point of view, they've made the best argument, you know, for the proof of God that no one could refute, and from the atheist point of view, you know they're not convinced, so they just kind of stay on the on the kind of I'm not convinced point, and then you know, you can't really have a conversation at that
point. I would slightly push back on that because I think the thing is, when you're looking at justification for something, you can you can reasonably say I would say anyway that you can reasonably say that. You know, if there is an evidence for something and somebody is claiming that that things exist, that thing exists, you have a better state of justification than they do for not accepting that thing. And you know, it's a bit like Russell's teapot.
You know, if if we don't have whether it's there or not, it's largely irrelevant that you're claiming that it's there when there's nothing to suggest it's there, that there is no evidence to suggest it's there. It's kind of yeah, you have less justification in that belief state than you do in the
belief that it's not that because there's no evidence. Yeah, And and I think that's where, you know, you get to more of a philosophical discussion where you know, the atheists can put in the justification to you know, why their belief stats such and why it makes sense to hold this belief state rather than you know, believing something where there is no evidence. So so
that's where it can kind of progress into the philosophical discussion. But you know, I do feel like there are a lot of debates, quote unquote debates that people have where they're just essentially, you know, staking out their own belief states. Yeah, yeah, I agree. We're gonna let you go. We're gonna kind of wrap the show up. I appreciate the call.
I like that call. We don't get many kind of calls are purely on philosophy without people trying to throw shit kind of YouTube style philosophy out you. So it's nice to have a kind of call that's in my fieldhouse we allow without on what field houses. I don't know why I said that wheelhouse without without having that argumentation where we can have a pure, just a simple,
good conversation about it. So I really do appreciate that call. I do want to say, before we do go onto any announcements that if any of your thinking that's Mary Magdalen behind me. I just want to assure you that it's actually Mary, the Mother of God, that Jesus is trying to stick his tongue down the throat. So because that's just can't just feel that's the kind of fellow Jesus was. He'd just liked to give his mum a good
tonguing in various holes. So if anyway on that point, on that point, the prompt for this week is God's creation won't be complete until it creates blank. Replying the comments and tune in at the beginning of next week's episode to hear the top three answers. Let's throw some loverings out there. Let's throw some loverings out there for God, who has tried unsuccessfully to today to end the show by intervening with our technology and failing miserably because he's a little
bit crap. We are going to be both myself and Jim are going to be in the ACD discord after the show. So if you want to continue with the conversation, jump over there. And if you don't believe this is your community and we appreciate you being here, and if you do believe we don't hate you, we are just not convinced. We will see you next time. We want the truth, So watch Truth Wanted Live Friday at seven
pm Central. Visit tiny do's cc slash YTTW and call into the show at five one two nine nine one nine two four two, or connect to the show on mine at tiny dot cc slash call tw