Existence of God: Kant, Aquinas

Again, let me troll for someone to help me on this subject. (I think I posted this same question a year or so ago.)

Can anyone explain to my how or if Kant’s arguments against the provability of God’s existence in his –

Critique of Pure Reason (Book II, chapter 3)
humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/

…how or if they apply to Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence in –

Part One, Question 2 of the Summa Thgologica
newadvent.org/summa/100200.htm

or in 1-13 of the Summa Contra Gentiles
nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_13.htm

Don’t everyone start up at once. And remember, I’m a Dunce. I think I understand Medieval philosophy, but not this modern stuff. Be ready for stupid questions if you try to explain to me.

I know there’s a lot of more urgent matters to be discussed on the board – just wondering if there’s a helpful philosopher out there.

Vale bene,
my real name

Kant holds that the cosmological argument whittles down to the ontological argument. Here is his argument:

The cosmological argument is divided into two parts:

1. The proof of the existence of a necessary being from the fact of some existence.

2. The identification of this necessary being with a perfect being.

Kant seems not to criticize too much the first part. He seems to grant that the fact that something exists can prove that a necessary being exists (if further he does not grant that anymore, his refusal rests upon shaky grounds).

But he contends that the identification of the necessary being is problematical.

How can one prove that:

“A necessary being is perfect”?

For Kant, the “proof” of this statement would consist of taking its converse:

“Some perfect being is necessary”

Then we generalize from some to each, on the ground that there is nothing which could distinguish perfect beings (in other words, there cannot be more than one perfect being).

Therefore we obtain:

“Each perfect being is necessary”.

That which amounts to:

“A perfect being is necessary”.

But this last statement is exactly what the ontological argument held.

Therefore, for Kant, the proof of the second part of the cosmological argument rests upon the validity of the ontological argument. Kant goes one step further saying that the whole cosmological argument rests upon the ontological argument.

Is this criticism sound?

Not necessarily. Kant assumes that there is only one way to prove that a necessary being is perfect, but there can be other ways. The thomists can prove the perfection of God by showing that God is simple. But if God had only limited perfections, he would be made of two principles: the perfection that he has, and the principle which limits the realization of that perfection to a certain level. And he would be no more simple. Therefore, God must be absolutely perfect.

But Kant is right in holding that the mere existence of a necessary being is not enough for proving God and that the theist has more work to do.

As for the teleological argument, God is far less strong than Hume. He says only that the argument can only prove, at best, the existence of an architect, but not the existence of a creator.

I thought the most famous arguments on God are in Critique of Practical Reason, Foundations, and Critique of Judgment. In the first two, Kant argues for an ethics that is not dependent on God, but coincides with God. God, but not a church. just the idea of a first cause or universality. In Jugdment, Kant speaks about different types of jugdments and the judgment of beauty. This leads to a discussion of reverence, which leads to awe of beauty that can be (again) traceable to a first cause. Kant makes much use of causal arguments, and so includes God. Kant works furiously to devorce ethics from religion, so…i’m not sure what kind of God you are speaking of.

I dont have Aquinas with me at the moment, so I can’t really answer specifics. but, by reading your links I think you can make a connection between Summa Contra Gentiles and Kant if you want to. but this really just has to do with causation (physics), not Aquinas.

good luck

The flaw of Kant’s philosophy is that there is synthetic a priori knowledge, knowledge that is prior to experience.

Modern science has demonstrated that our knowledge is all dependant on experience.

I thought a lot of modern science was counter-intuitive and relied on educated imagination. (Relativity, Heisenberg, string theory)

jjg, the Scholastics would agree that “there is nothing in the mind that is not previously in the senses”, and that the mind always uses a phantasm. But in addition to experience, there is also whatever method the mind uses to operate on it. Come to think of it – I don’t know of any Scholastics who consider what the mind specifically does when it turns imagination into knowledge. Maybe I should re-check my De Anima.

my real name

Kant was a Deist, and wanted a God that would conform to his thought – but I argue for a full-blown Theist God – which doesn’t mean an argument from Kant would be prima facie unusable.

Alex, thanks for the post. I will have to look up those texts by Kant – you’re very knowledgeable. And if you ever need Aquinas, he’s online.

Vale bene,
mrn

Aquinas believed the phantasm remains the object of thought. He knew that we use represenations of reality in our mind, but none the less those models are in some way true representations of reality even if they are inadequate representations.

Applied science has confirmed this.

Kant believed all our knowledge is based on the model in our mind and we cannot know how true it is to the objective world.

Is this a recent discovery of applied science?
I’ve heard philosophical proofs, but not empirical ones.
Is this from a brain study?
I would really like to read up on this.

Thanks much if you can direct me to more information.

my real name

Applied science confirms it becase we use the models in our mind in everyday applicatons. They trancend just concepts and ideas and affect the objective world.

toreasonpublishing.com