I agree here, but this is when the discussion of the transcendental dialectic begins, whereby is it not a compelling premise that it is a necessary condition that our existence can be reasonably concluded as having formed by a causal sequence returning back to the unknown yet substantive formation of the universe? We can conclude that God being a man on a cloud or the trinity etc are the illusions of reason as we are able to trace the source as rational, autonomous beings following a synthesis between us and consciousness of the world, and the possibility of transcendental reflection for ourselves is practically indispensable epistemologically, but I am not convinced that we simply stop at the point of being aware of our limitations but rather continue - morally - toward the ideal, making God necessary for perfecting our moral position.

What do you think of this? http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/KSP5.html — TimeLine

Well, without a transcendent God to tell us what to do, we merely have to reject salvation and become the homunculus we always have been. Such a process is not that different then what Abraham had to do when he found God and let God save him, which merely causes one transcendence to be replaced with another transcendence, or one salvation to be used instead of another salvation.depending on how one looks at it. God has been used as a type of magic feather to allow us to do the things that we might not think of doing or perhaps not think ourselves capable of doing without 'God' guiding us (although what we have and and haven't been able to do may not be that impressive by some peoples standards), but whether we still need to continue holding onto our magic feathers may be dependent on each individual themselves. For some the answer may be 'yes', but for others the answer could be 'no'.

We can conclude that God being a man on a cloud or the trinity etc are the illusions of reason as we are able to trace the source as rational, autonomous beings following a synthesis between us and consciousness of the world, and the possibility of transcendental reflection for ourselves is practically indispensable epistemologically, but I am not convinced that we simply stop at the point of being aware of our limitations but rather continue - morally - toward the ideal, making God necessary for perfecting our moral position.-

as we are able to trace the source as rational, autonomous beings following a synthesis between us and consciousness of the world,

Kant thought that the structure of the world does not necessarily match the structure of thought. His transcendental method attempts to find the 'necessary' presuppositions that explain what we experience. These presuppositions are believed and the results achieved by that belief enable measures such as Planck's Constant.

This belief is a faith, a conviction, a claim about what there is, it is not certitude, but it works. This is pure theoretic faith, which is similar to religious faith, only funny thing, the more skeptical the theory the greater the faith in 'actuality'.

But getting back to PP's OP, it is the refutation of the Ontological Argument that leads to the overturning of metaphysical absolutes, necessity with a big N. This coup dethrones god, which leads to the denial of the principal of sufficient reason and the affirmation of ultimate contingency of existence (and the law of noncontradiction). The uncaused cause & the noumenon, are both unknowable but not forgotten, they are still needed as necessary perspectives in our empirical faith in pure reason & our religious faith in freedom, liberty, equality, et al. They create their own 'space', I think.

Steve Palmquist's analysis, and his survey of positions is excellent. I have have some more thoughts on this topic.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been celebrating after a promotion at work :D

The uncaused cause & the noumenon, are both unknowable but not forgotten, they are still needed as necessary perspectives in our empirical faith in pure reason & our religious faith in freedom, liberty, equality, et al. They create their own 'space', I think. — Cavacava

I am somewhat confused; I understand and agree with what you are saying vis-a-vis the ontological argument, but I am not sure whether we are encircling the same point before been slingshot into opposing directions or whether we agree with one another. Is this 'space' where doth lies Kant' 'proof' of humanity' propensity to evil?

Kant's did not need to prove humanity's propensity to evil...all you have to do is to look around, it is found universally, everywhere man is...evil is. For Kant evil is subscuming to desire. The conflict between man's animal inclinations and his reason creates a 'space' within which evil is defined. Evil is what it means to be human; without the possibility to do otherwise, man could not be free. Our inclinations are for self-satisfaction prior to our understanding of what it means to be a member of the kingdom of ends. Looking back, we are innately self centered prior to our socialization.

PS Congratulations! 8-)

Evil is what it means to be human; without the possibility to do otherwise, man could not be free. — Cavacava

Whoa!

Avoiding the difficult yet delicious arguments on the state of nature - though I myself take preference to Rousseau over Hobbes if you care to know - where exactly does this solid proof of evil share in your argument of contingency? If this 'space' contains an innately self-centred evil and whilst moral laws do not necessarily require a demonstration of the existence of God, reason itself vis-a-vis the reformation of character depends on the existence of God considering revolution für die denkungsart. Thus, God is necessary.

PS Congratulations! — Cavacava

Ta very muchly. :-*

Well, Kant's struggle here is epistemic not ontological, it has to do with what is right or wrong and not what is or is not. In my opinion, he loses this struggle, because of his dismissal of desire, which also dismisses motivation.

Faith in God may be as necessary epistemically as all universals/absolutes are 'necessary' epistemically, but that hardly makes them necessary ontologically, which is what we are discussing...

I think it is a waste of time - and rather silly - to imagine that the puzzle of the orgin of space and time can be solved by playing around with words, as if reality is governed by idioms of the English language. — keithprosser

Extremely important point that's often overlooked. Too many arguments seem to hinge on language and how we conceptualize things, and it's ridiculous that those arguments are given so much consideration.