I’m new to the forum here, but here goes. My main area of interest is Kant. And I have an answer to Kant. Kant demanded a priori proofs to the fundamental questions of God, Freedom, and Immortality. What did Kant mean by an a priori proof? It is the same kind of reasoning found in mathematics and geometry … something with universality, and objective validity … that has in it, its own inherent proof. Example: Take a volume in a sphere and give it a certain density. If the volume of the sphere is inflated, then the density decreases in proportion to the degree of inflation, and if the volume is decreased, the density must then increase. This is a simple example, but it is the kind of reasoning Kant wanted from metaphysicians, hoping to tackle the above Big questions. Nothing else would suffice for Kant. No conjecture allowed. No guessing. Just simple reasoning that can’t be argued with, or contradicted. This is what I understand as a priori proof for God … whether such is possible remains to be determined. I think it is possible. Many would argue otherwise, including possibly, Kant. Although Kant was far from the ‘destroyer of metaphysics’ that he was mislabeled as. He was in my reading of him, a staunch defender of metaphysics. He just had no room for conjecture or possibilities. He demanded a priori certainty. For that, I highly respect Kant. No other philosopher understood as well as Kant, just what kind of reasoning was needed to solve the most difficult questions of all. My solution to Kant provides four a priori principles that define a science of metaphysics, according to Kant’s strict critical demands. The principles are called: Causal Principle, the Principle of Divergence, the Principle of Equal Relation, and the Principle of Progressive Design. The causal process explained by these principles provide an explanation for the origin and the existence of three universals: Spacetime, Mass, and Mind. They also confirm big bang theory among other things, including the singularity at the beginning of time. Anyone interested can comment. But I only reply to intelligent questions and serious interest. Nothing innane please. This is a serious topic that demands serious discussion by deep thinkers, with a level of intelligence above the norm … not to insult anyone … everyone has the innate capacity for deep thought and all the other requisites, from the most amateur philosophers, to those with degrees teaching at major universities. Regards.
a pri·o·ri (ä pr-ôr, -r, pr-ôr, -r)
adj.
- Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
To say, A priori I know that GOD exist which means he must exist is really nothing more than
an assumption that god exist because I am certain he exist. It requires no facts or evidence
because it exist regardless of the facts or evidence. So one can say, show me god and the answer can
be, I don’t have to because he I am certain he exist. Now it is my understanding of philosophy is that
we don’t accept assumptions. Our goal is to challenge not only our own assumptions, but societies assumptions.
To accept god from an A Priori assumption is to move from philosophy to theology. And in theology is all about
A Priori assumptions.
Kropotkin
The only attempt at a priori proof of God is known as the ontological argument. And Kant repudiated that. Kant did not think that God could be proved. That is why he said he had removed knowledge to make room for faith.
He removed knowledge in order to make room for faith, because it was impossible for him to go beyond his critical philosophy, not because he thought it impossible for others to eventually form a complete a priori argument. My ‘causal argument’ is not the same as the ontological argument. Also, it cannot be judged a tautology without being first heard and understood. An assumption of something being a tautology is not a good philosophical argument against anything. There are several things going for us now that Kant did not have the advantage of in his own time. The science of cosmology and its findings. The finding that the universe is expanding. Big bang theory. These are all highly relevant. Further, Kant himself set the groundwork for the possibility of a science of metaphysics in his critical philosophy, but one needs to read it more in depth. The absence of a priori proof (the kind Kant demanded) does not amount to a proof that such is impossible. But one should understand that science proper and philosophy are not the same thing and Kant did not expect the kind of proof in metaphysics that is demanded by science proper. Further, science and philosophy do not have similar aims. Philosophy is unbounded. Science proper is bound to the empirical world of sense and sense experience. Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that Kant wrote about in his critical philosophy is free to question and attempt proofs in the existence of noumena as he called it. But his critical philosophy sets forth the rules. These I accept because they make perfect sense. All that Kant dismissed in this regard was the appeal to ‘the magic wand of so-called common sense.’ His first antinomy, however, is grounded upon the common sensed presumption that only nothing can be derived from nothing. It accepts the dictionary definition of ‘nothing’ --a common sensed definition, and judges that here, human reason is stuck. It cannot proceed any further; as far as Kant himself could see. Yet, isn’t it interesting that Kant in a footnote in the ‘Prolegomena’ asks his critical reader to devote to this antinomy ‘his chief attention?’ If Kant were so opposed to metaphysics, and the hopes and aspirations it holds out, then why would he bother to ask his critical reader to devote to this antinomy his chief attention? The answer: Because he felt there could be a solution to it. The thesis is: The world has, as to time and space, a limit (it had a beginning). The antithesis is: The world has, as to time and space, no limit (it has always existed). This is what requires our chief attention. If we begin with the thesis, and accept that before the universe came into being, it did not exist (exactly what the thesis presupposes), then we begin at what Hegel also thought was the most logical beginning. A void, or what Hegel called the ‘simple immediate.’ My argument also begins with a void. So my argument is that the thesis is correct. The antithesis is false. They can’t both be true. This is logical. The thesis has been shown to be true, according to the findings of cosmology --pointing back to a time when the universe, as we know it, did not exist. But there is a possible proof of the thesis using pure reason alone. When you think of a void (or nothing at all) one disproves the very possibility of nothing. One cannot think nothing. The idea amounts to a self-contradiction. As soon as we ‘think’ nothing, we think something. The problem is putting forth the kind of critical definition of nothing that Kant was aiming at, or the kind of critical definitiont that would have been acceptable to him. And the following is the premise of my ‘causal argument’ --which is bolstered by further explanation (added definition) throughout my causal argument. [It is a complete, self-consistent argument]. For those interested, this following critical definiton of nothing replaces the common-sensed dictionary definiton of nothing [don’t be too critical here in thinking that as philosophically minded people we have no such right to overthrow Webster’s definition of nothing.]: Here goes: A) The external, objective, Absolute state of nothing that exists as a boundless, unconditional state outside of B) The internal, subjective, finite state being our idea of A. These are two purely related representations, or ideas, one of which cannot exist without the other. As soon as we admit either one of these representations into our thinking, we must admit the other. From this premise a causal argument can be extended that relies on its own a priori proof, but it would be wrong to suggest that no further confirmation can be possible from the world of our concrete sense experience. The more difficult part of Kant for most readers of Kant is where he writes of metaphysics in relation to the world of sense experience, wherein it must have its greatest and most practical grounds of proof. I go on with these A and B representations to explain a complete causal argument that provides an a priori explanation of how the universals of spacetime, mass, and mind came into being. Hegel began with a similar premise. Where he failed to answer Kant was in following through with a complete explanation of how, from his premise, we arrive at the universe that exists in the present. My causal argument follows through with a complete a priori explanation, in line with Kant, that follows through to a certain conclusion that follows, necessarily, from the premise. The premise, can be defined further. The question is, what further definition can be added to it. I have the answer. If anyone cares to hear it without going off into their own tangents, and preconceived prejudices as to what is and what isn’t possible for human reason.
If you want to share it, share it. If you don’t, don’t. Why waste time saying you have it and providing no proof? Are you on some sort of marketing trip?
“Preconceived prejudices as to what is and what isn’t possible for human reason” already makes it sound suspicious. Setting the stage to tell anyone who points out the flaw(s) in the argument that they’re just blinded by preconception? It doesn’t take a thinker of Kant’s calibre to do that… 
Put it out here. People will go out on tangents, but you may get useful feedback. If you’re not after feedback but adulation, this may not be the place.
Isn’t that what metaphysics is?
False. But that’s for another topic.
All saying that something is a priori means is that it can be logically formulated into a sentence, communicated, and agreed upon by some receiving parties simply on the basis that it makes sense. Just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it exists. Unicorns come to mind.
A priori, ‘before-experience’ theories come in the form of experience. Ironic, no?
To match aspects of experience together and then say the match was there before the experience is a contradiction (the induction of the objective where essence precedes existence). This is ‘the error of a false causality’.
In removing knowledge to make room for faith, Kant has removed the empirical to make room for skepticism. He has descended from a long line of metaphysicians who have replaced strength, mastery and certainty with shrinking doubt, fear and servility. He has replaced reality with backworlds, he has replaced assertion with wandering around, floating amongst abstract ideals.
Incidentally, if cosmological knowledge is necessary, then the theory is not a priori.
Simulacra: said ‘isn’t that what metaphysics is?’ --speaking of Kant not having room for conjecture in metaphysics. Kant had no room for conjecture because he wanted something else: judgments that were a priori, objectively valid, and universal … not arbitrarily chosen. A judgment in metaphysics according to Kant, in order to qualify it as a science, would be true for everyone, not just the person making the judgment.
Since someone posted above for me to lay in on the line, here goes: My ‘causal argument’ consists of four a priori principles. You can comment on them as we go along if you wish. I might not respond to all the criticisms. But I’ll try and respond to as many as I can. I’ll begin with Kant’s first antinomy, and I’ll provide a solution to it. You can take exception to it if you can. Give it your best shot. I’ll try and respond as best as I’m able.
I’ll be taking the position that the thesis of Kant’s first antinomy is true. The antithesis is false.
Thesis: The world is, as to time and space, limited [the world -or unvierse- had a beginning].
Antithesis: The world is, as to time and space, unlimited [the world -or universe- has always existed].
Remark: I could go on a side tangent here and say the assumption that the world has always existed, in some form or another, may be true, but this presses the question: What kind of form? Could we say the universe existed as a singularity before it became what it is now? We could argue this and arge for the antithesis in this respect. But I’m pushing for the antithesis to mean explicitly what Kant took it to mean -the absence of everything. This leaves us with nothing, according to Kant.
The definition of nothing is arguable philosophically. Webster’s dictionary definition is a common sensed definition. Kant tossed out any appeal to the magic wand of so-called common sense with regard to judgments of metaphysics. I’ll take his advice and throw the magic wand aside, as well as the dictionary definition.
When we think nothing we negate the thought of nothing by the very act of thought. If all things were cancelled out of existence, would we still have nothing? The universe had to have arisen from some primary state, and the simplest possible state I can reason it being reduced to is an absolute void. I cannot conceive of any simpler state. But with this absolute void amount to nothing? Here I am questioning what it is when we have in mind when we speak of nothing. I’ll put forth two pure and related ideas or representations that provide a substitute to the common sensed dictionary definition of nothing.
A) The absolute void …
B) The idea of this absolute void …
The immediate argument follows: Before existence how can there be … B?
This is where Hegel might help a little. I’m inclined to agree with Hegel, for he rejects black and white thinking here and postulates that not-being and being are there at the very beginning of all things, and that not-being attempts to move away from itself towards being. I won’t bother with the quotes, but I could put them down if anyone wishes. I’m trying to condense things here.
But if A cannot be denied, and in as far as A provides an absolute constant, then B must follow.
The argument against B only appears natural because we are here speaking of the most infinitesimal beginning we can possibly think of. B, for this same reason, follows as the most infinitesimal thing that we can think of, but this provides no grounds for arguing against it.
The definition of A and B, nevertheless, can be furthened as follows:
A) The absolute void, as an external, objective, infinite, unconditional state in relation to:
B) An internal, subjective, finite, conditional state -being an ultimate, initial realization of the state of A (however infinitesimal).
A can therefore be called the ultimate first cause to the effect of B.
The effect, B, follows by virtue of the infinite motivating factor of A, and it is A towards which B is necessarily drawn.
The pure relation expressed between A and B expresses a relation between an ultimate, first Cause (=A) and the effect (=B) that it gives rise to.
The effect, B, can further be defined as a ‘pure dynamic force of mind.’
This definition follows for we are not speaking here of something ‘empirical’ in nature. Also, the term ‘mind’ being used here is not being used in any ordinary sense of the term. It will become more clear what this definition means, and why the definition holds as the argument progresses, and further clarity is added to the definitions given.
The effect =B can be thought of as a pure sphere of expansion motivated towards the Absolute (A). But if B follows as a pure sphere of expansion motivated towards its objective state =A, this in turn implies that B must undergo a certain change by way of its movement towards its objective state =A.
How are we to understand the nature of this change?
We can begin to understand the nature of this change first of all by thinking of B as a pure sphere of expansion moving out in all directions towards A. This implies that the force of B’s expansion towards A must, due to its increasing sphere, diminish in proportion to its expansion. Due to this change B cannot therefore follow as infinite in extent, but because of its diminishing force (its change), B can only be thought of as being finite in extent. [This judgment will be explained further and strengthened further by the argument as it progresses.]
The Absolute motivating factor (A) to the effect (B), is constant. Consequently, the effect =B must, by virtue of this costant motivating factor, inevitably obtain to its objective state =A.
This is all that I will put forth here, but the above provides both a critical definition that replaces the common sensed dictionary definition of nothing, and it provides a solution to Kant’s first antinomy, and a solution that offers something more than an impossible obstacle beyond which reason is incapable of progressing any furhter.
What comes from the above is the explanation of a complete ‘causal process’ -meaning a causal process with a definite beginning (as explained above) and an inevitable end. I will also argue that the causal process is necessary, and that the whole argument proceeds from pure reason alone. But this does not imply that it lacks empirical validation. The empirical validation will follow at the end of the argument. The next of the four a priori principles that constitute this argument is the Principle of Divergence. The above explanation I call the Causal Principle. The four principles together are:
The Causal Principle, the Principle of Divergence, the Principle of Equal Relation, and the Principle of Progressive Design.
The principles together provide a solution to the question of the origin of the universals: spacetime, mass, and Mind.
The term ‘Mind’ requires a capital here. The argument necessitates it. This will also become more clear later on.
There may be an abundance of approaches to arguing against the above, but once the argument as a whole is given, some of these arguments may be answered, so if I see that an argument is answered by the argument as a whole please excuse my neglect of your argument, or perhaps a response that is not as in depth as you might want. I try to avoid terse resonses to argument. This causal argument itself, if you’re interested to note, took 25 years to develop and understand, and throughout the process, I had to ask myself repeatedly: Is this the way it has to work? The answer was always yes, because I tried to avoid going off into endless, deadend tangents in my reasoning out this causal argument. Each principle follows a strictly necessary, undeviating line of reasoning that follows necessarily. As such, I believe if falls in line with Kant’s critical demands for a science of metaphysics.
Comments/criticisms/arguments?
If there are any I’ll respond to them when I present the Principle of Divergence the next time I visit this forum. It will explain the nature of the change B undergoes, necessarily, and this explanation will invariably lead to the Principle of Equal Relation, and the final Principle of Progressive Design (as long as interest is shown).
Causal Principle:
The relationship between one event (called the cause) and a second event (called the effect), where the second event is the direct consequence of the first.
Principle of Divergence:
The given that different directions come from a common point.
Principle of Equal Relation:
Two separate components, or more, are equal in power to each other either on their own value or by a secondary, or more, mitigation of differences.
Principle of Progressive Design:
That the basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development proceeds, or proceeded, in steps; continuing steadily by tangible increments.
These are the 4 pirori that you have outlined.
These are what these batch of words translate and mean.
As such, let us test them out as an experiment to see if they sustain their proposed purposes, which is stated to be, 'The four ‘Shostakovich’ principles of Kantian metaphysics provide a means by which to examine metaphysics with universality and objective validity, and therefore provide it’s own inherent proof without conjecture where previously lacking.’
Our experiment will be God.
God must be not only the cause, but the need for the cause must be part of the effect (Causality).
Humanity is allegedly the resulting effect of God that is the central focus.
Other resulting effects exist, of course, but Humanity must be the central focus of God as a cause as the other physical objects of the universe are not as cognitively developed to appreciate being the effect of such a cause of God.
However, what is the need for the cause for the effect to exist?
Does man need God for man to be an effect?
Man must have a creation of some form or another; whether that creation is spontaneous or evolutionary is surely debatable, however, the fact is that at some point, man does indeed need some form of narrow populated creationary period (divergence).
Now, the generation of man, from whatever material into whatever material the first man was achieved with, needed an energy source of some power.
The motivation to move forward into another from of material from the previous form of material.
Whether this material was sand to flesh, or amoebic to primate is not important as both are forms of material alteration; and both therefore require a motivation to move from one form into the other; just as the flower needs a motivation to blossom or the bowling ball needs a motivation to be thrown.
The question of what that motiviation was goes further even back than this.
It goes back to a question of what the motivation was for the first material to exist for was in the first place.
If man exists, then the originating material of the first forms of anything; which in either system lead to man; must exist, at least in part, for the purposes of creating man.
If they were not, then man would not exist.
If the potential of man was not possible as a movement from the first form to the next (instantly or gradually) then man would simply not be possible.
As man is, so is the material that man first formed from, and it before man (instantly or gradually).
As such, man is equal in all accounts to the material in which previously existed man (instantly or gradually) as without it man would not be, and without man, the previous material would neither be as it was.
The material would only be as it was if part of what it was included the potential for man to exist.
Therefore, all of the value compensated by the values of need and occurrence, man and man’s creationary material are equal (principle of equal relation).
Now, as man is, it is assured that man came from that form which preceded man; whatever form that may be; innate or alive, regardless of what it may have been.
As such, this means that man made a move from the first form to his current form in one step; forming more pure and therefore simpler components into the next form; markedly more complex and defaulted.
It is either this last, or man moved from the first form into a series of transitional forms until man became what man is today as a result of the first form, whatever it may be, was and that all occurrences have occurred for no other purpose than to make man what man is today by relation that reality is today as it is because of what it has been up until it has occurred into what it is today, and would not be what it is today with the slightest change to what it has been in the past up to now.
The principle of progressive design suggests that logically, the inherent system would suggest the latter and not the former.
So, the question becomes…does the progressive design of man from whatever matter man was previously; sand to flesh, amoebic to primate; require the capacity of a cognitive awareness for the creation manufacturing to occur in order for man to arrive as a result or not?
We do not have to show what it must take to create man; only whether man must inherently require cognitive awareness previous to man to arise as a form.
So the question becomes; does the state of cognition existing require a pre-existing cognition to create that existent cognition?
I don’t know; it does not appear to me inherently, even using the guidelines.
Too bad that common sense (or, more importantly, language) is the very thing that precedes all philosophical debate. Your entire argument pretty much breaks down after that.
I don’t think you understand that things like “nothing” are just words. Words come before ideas. To argue about things like the meaning of “nothing” is to isolate a word from the entire linguistic framework from which it bears its meaning. Sure, you iron out all the obstacles for the sake of clarity, but in the process you create a smooth and shiny surface without any traction, so that the only thing you can lean on to stand up is the very concept of “nothing” (or what have you). Your tendency to isolate and control variables is a valiant effort at sustaining the scientific method, but category mistakes will start shooting out of your ass once you try to apply the SM to lofty and intangible concepts.
God wouldn’t exist if we weren’t here to define the word “God”.
Common sense response above:
The reason Kant dismissed any appeal to the magic wand of so-called common senses is that it has no place in metaphysics, anymore than, as he wrote, it has in mathematics or geometry. This can’t be that hard a critical point to grasp.
We can still call the ‘absolute void’ a ‘nothing,’ but the A and B representations put forward above attempt to move our thought process to analyze what it is we have in mind (not just to settle upon an easy, common sensed definiton), and I think we can agree that what we have in mind when we attempt to visualize this state is an ‘absolute,’ and the immediate realization here is that the absolute is something that extends infinitely beyond our finite comprehension. We can never grasp the absolute. We can however, still define the absolute through the A and B representations. I think this is about the best we can do, without delving into endless conjectures that lead nowhere. The A and B representations provide a critical definition where there was none before. And the ‘Principle of Divergence’ that I haven’t outlined yet (though there is a post above offering something sepculative in this regard) follows directly and necessarily from this Causal Principle. Maybe you’ll see this once I’ve outlined the principle. The main thing with the above is that Kant looked at the first antinomy … and felt that something could not possibly arise from nothing. There is the obstacle and it is the main obstacle that Kant asked his critical reader to examine.
Kant explains something important along these lines as follows: “Hume started chiefly from a single but important concept in metaphysics, namely, that of the connection of cause and effect (including its derivatives force and action, and so on). He challenged reason, which pretends to have given birth to this concept of herself, to answer him by what right she thinks anything could be so constituted that if that thing be posited, something else also must necessarily be posited; for this is the meaning of the concept of cause. He demonstrated irrefutably that it was perfectly impossible for reason to think a priori and by means of concepts such a combination, for it implies necessity. We cannot at all see why, in consequence of the existence of one thing, another must necessarily exist or how the concept of such a combination can arise a priori.” --In the Introduction to the 'Prolegomena …" just before he quotes Horace.
The Causal Principle above overcomes this impasse. It does so for it does not depend upon empirical validation, and it is not something grounded upon experience.
“But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists, but never that it must necessary exist so and not otherwise. Experience therefore can never teach us the nature of things in themselves.” Prolegomena: Under sub-heading 14 “How is Pure Science of Nature Possible?”
This impasse is also overcome with the beginning provided by the A and B representations.
Kant himself mentions this same dilemma in his own thinking with regard to the concept of cause: “But I cannot, by all my power of thinking, extract from the concept of a thing the concept of something else whose existence is necessarily connected with the former; for this I must call in experience. And though my understanding furnishes me a priori (yet only in reference to possible experience) with the concept of such a connection (that is causation), I cannot exhibit it, like the concepts of mathematics, by intuiting it a priori, and so show its possibility a priori… This concept, together with the prinkciples of its application, always requires, if it shall hold a priori -as it requisite in metaphysics- a justification and deduction of its possibility, because we cannot otherwise know how far it holds good and whether it can be used in experience only or beyond it also … Therefore in metaphysics, as a speculative science of pure reason, we can never appeal to common sense, but may do so only when we are forced to surrender it and to renounce all pure speculative knowledge …” {371-372} -Prolegomena, just before the Appendix.
The A and B representations above, outlining the Causal Principle, overcome this impasse. The reason why this is so is that we’re reaching back to the simplest possible state imaginable … an absolute void. But it is the definition I’m striking at. This is the reason why I’m not satisfied with simply settling on Webster’s dictionary definition of nothing. What is an absolute void? It is defined, as best as I can define it (although someone might want to add something more … though I fear they would be overstepping things), through these two pure, distinct, yet related ideas … one representation or idea being infinite, and the other finite. One unconditional, the other conditional. This definition is fundamentally important. But perhaps the definition is so simple that it escapes our immediate attention, and we may jump to the conclusion that all this is much too trivial. The subject however is far from trivial. It is an attempt to come to an understanding of the ultimate beginning of all things.
Further on common sense with regard to the importance of the issue: “Common sense can hardly understand the rule that every event is determined by means of its cause and can never comprehend it in its generality. It therefore demands an example from experience; and when it hears that this rule means nothing but what it always thought when a pane was broken or a kitchen utensil missing, it then understands the principle and grants it. Common sense, therefore, is only of use so far as it can see its rules (though they actually are a priori) confirmed by experience; consequently to comprehend them a priori, or independently of experience, belongs to the speculative understanding and lies quite beyond the horizon of common sense. But the province of metaphysics is entirely confined to the latter kind of knowledge, and it is certainly a bad sign of common sense to appeal to it as a witness, for it cannot here form any opinion whatever, and men look down upon it with contempt until they are in straits and can find in their speculation neither advice nor help.” Prolegomena [369-371] under the sub-heading “How is Metaphysics Possible as a Science?”
The Causal Principle above leads to the Principle of Divergence, as follows:
The representation B provides the concept not of a static, immobile state, or condition, but a dynamic condition motivated towards the Absolute objective of A, as its ultimate Cause.
B can be defined further as a finite sphere, in relation to A, and motivated towards A. As such it provides the concept of a dynamically expanding sphere, moving out towards A.
This movement brings about a change in the ‘quality’ or the form of B. Without this change, we cannot conceive of B, or hold any understanding of B, as an effect, moving towards A.
If B, through the initial, pure state of relation it has with A, is motivated towards A, then the change that it implies in this movement negates its initial relation to A. It can also be thought of as opposing A, by way of its change in its movement towards A; that is, it can be thought of as a counterforce to A.
Also, if the sphere of B expands in its movement towards its objective state =A; then this implies that the force whereby it moves towards A, must diminish in proportion to its expansion, or its increasing sphere; consequently, this also accounts for its finitude. B cannot therefore be thought of as being infinite, in extent.
Once the force of B has dissipated entirely, through its movement towards A, its movement would necessarily cease.
As a result, the opposite effect to expansion would ensue, and B would collapse back to the original state from which its expansion began.
The point at which the expansion of B began would once again give rise to a further expanding state, but as the Cause to this following state of expansion is constant, what is implied is that this succeeding effect would follow with greater intensity. But the effect would once again disipate and fall back; so what is implied here is a series of successively expanding and contracting stages, wherein B intensifies successively, through each stage, in its movement towards A.
The Causal Principle explicitly states that because the Cause is Absolute, and constant, then B must inevitably, and necessarily obtain to the Absolute.
The intensification of B in its movement towards A can be further understood as follows:
B can be said to have a certain density (however minimal this might be thought). It can be said to have a certain quality, which would be saying much the same thing. Or ir can be said to have a certain force, which again, would be saying much the same thing. This density, quality, or force, we can for the sake of clarity, or brevity, call X.
We can understand the intensification or increasing complexity or increasing force of X as follows:
If B is given as an expanding sphere, moving towards A, then X must decrease proportionately with B’s expansion towards A. X would therefore undergo a qualitative change from the beginning of its expansion, towards the end of its expansion; and X would also, in its intensification from one stage to the next, give rise to an ever increasing or intense and divergent form from one stage to the next. This divergence would be a divergence away from the pure form of X at the beginning of this series. This successive intensification would continue to the point where X would take on a greater and greater opposing form to A -and inevitably a greater mass of more disproportionate forms from one stage to the next.
We can think of the expansion taking place as growing more intense and rapid with each stage, and greater in duration due to the increasing intensity from one stage to the next. Other concepts can be included here, like the concept of heat, decreasing with expansion, and increasing with contraction, all the way from an ultimate beginning, approaching zero, and increasing to an absolute intensity.
With each stage in this series of expansions and contractions the form of X inevitably became more and more divergent, so that a mass of more disproportionate and separate forces were generated from one stage to the next. These forces again, would have been generated by the Constant motivating force compelling B in its movement towards A.
The Principle of Divergence offers a means of understanding the necessary change that B must have undergone in its movement towards the absolute.
This series however, must inevitably have reached such a stage that its intensification could continue no further. This would have marked a critical stage within this series beyond which the forces generated in this series could intensity no further.
This is explained by the Principle of Equal Relation as follows:
X can be thought of as the counterforce to the force of expansion. That is, X comprised a mass of more material, divergent forces that pulled against the force of expansion -B moving towards A.
B can also be understood as maintaining a constant relation to A. It can be thought of as the outermost edge to each stage of expansion, while X may be understood as those forces trailing off from this outermost edge. The further these divergent forces trailed off from this outermost edge the lesser their rates of expansion and the more divergent and the more disproportionate their forms.
B would maintain its relation to A because of its greater rate of expansion. While those forces trailing off from B, or the outermost edge of each stage of expansion, would have lesser rates of expansion, and would trail off into more divergent, and more separate and more disproportionate forces. B however, would maintain through its greater rate of expansion, a unified, pure, or homogenous form, and through this would maintain its relation to A throughout each separate stage of the series generated in its movement to A.
The intensification and the divergence of these forces however would continue only until B reached such an intensity, and such a greater rate of expansion, that inevitably it separated entirely from those forces =X, that were generated by it in its movement towards A. This critical stage would have been reached only once B was equal to those forces that were generated by it in its movement towards A. Until this stage was reach these diverging forces would simply have continued to undergo further intensification. But once B achieved a force equal to X, it separated from X.
At this critical stage there then existed two related, yet opposing forces: One, a pure, unified force of energy, separate to, yet realted to: a mass of divergent, material forces that were in their total mass energy, equal to this pure force of energy.
At this critical stage, with these two separate, yet related forces having been generated, this series was brought to its inevitable end.
The Principle of Progressive Design is the next principle to be explained.
I’ll leave the above for now, for comment.
While more could have been added to the above I’m attempting to keep it to the bare minimum.
The argument thus far I feel satisfies Kant’s strict critical demand for something a priori from speculative reason, as opposed to something grounded upon common experience. And while common sense must be respect, there has been no need to appeal to common sense in the above. The judgment is self-consistent. It follows a very strict and necessary line of reasoning from the premise and will continue to do so to the final Principle of Progessive Design.
So far, this judgment also follows as an objectively valid judgment. That means, the reasoning is not arbitrarily chosen.
Perhaps it is obvious that this argument from pure reason is entirely a conceptual one, and it puts a certain demand upon one’s conceptual abilities. My experience has told me that not everyone has the capacity to understand this conceptual system, but I’ve attempted my best to make it as clear and understandable as possible. For instance, I’ve introduced the ‘X’ designation for this reason where I never bothered with this previously.
I believe with a little effort it can indeed be grasped by anyone if they put the required effort into it. This conceptual system offers no room for going off into various tangents or manifold possibilities. Kant also had something to say along these lines and maybe I’ll find the quote (in his Critique) and offer it in the next posting. The reason no varying, conflicting, large number of possibilities can be thought of here is because of the Causal Principle is straightforward and explicit: It states that as A is an Absolute, Constant motivating factor compelling B, then B must inevitably and necessarily obtain to A.
What is necessary for us is to understand is how B obtains to A and what is the change brought about by B in its obatining to A. The two principles just expounded provide the means for understanding how B obtains to A, and what change is brought about through B’s obtaining to A. More will be said on this, and the implications are nothing less than a pure understanding of the origin of spacetime, mass, and Mind (meaning, an explanation for the origin of the universe). This is the pure philosophical equivalent to a pure mathematical model for the origin the universe, but whereas mathematicians like Stephen Hawking and others are limited by their method, speculative philosophers are not so restricted. Perhaps the above attempt to do Kant some justice will also help us better understand where Kant was coming from. He was far ahead of his time in his thinking and while he has been critizied unfairly by a great many practically minded philosophers, and his critical philosophy is looked upon by many as the relic of an era of philosophy that is now dead, I think Kant has been severely short changed and the time for his vindication has come.
Sorry for any spelling mistakes. I’ve typed this very fast. Time is getting late and I’m getting sleepy now. One more day of work and it’s the long weekend (three days off).
I suggest you move up to more modern day philosophy. Kant had good ideas but he practically ruined an entire century of thinking. Hume was on the right track and then the likes of Kant and Hegel and Frichte lead us into a whole tangent of mystical metaphysics and idealism which eventually lead to the god-awful Heidegger. Schopenhauer was probably the most sober of these Germs and that’s saying a lot.
Read Wittgenstein or Quine or somebody. The continental stuff is dead, man.
As for your comment on common sense: all philosophical problems arise as a result of philosophy’s misinterpretation of common language (and thus common sense). When someone points to an object that exists at first glance outside of the mind and names it, he is not necessarily committing the fallacy of assuming that this objects lies outside of his mind; rather he is saying “here is an idea that has been produced extraneous of my will”. Philosophy commits the fallacy of analyzing his speech too thoroughly. Wittgenstein and the like are accredited for formulating this idea, but really Hume and Berkeley were well upon it hundreds of years prior. So read them too.
The above posts don’t reflect any kind of argument against the principles I’ve expounded so far. The latest misses the mark altogether.
The Principle of Progressive Design:
The A and B representations above provide a Causal Argument for the existence of a Supreme Mind/Being as follows:
The Principle of Equal Relation has it that the effect, B arises by necessity, due to the constant motivating factor provided by A (if this is confusing go back and read the defintion so far provided for A and B).
B achieves the objective state of A, obtaining to the Absolute. It reaches this at the critical stage where B is equal to X, the mass of divergent forces created in its movement towards the Absolute. At the end of the series we have: A: The Absolute. B: A separate, unified, or whole force of pure energy (and Mind) equal to A, and also equal in force to the mass of divergent forces it has generated in its movement to A. Thus, there is the explanation of where the mass from which the universe has been formed has been derived. It is the derivative of this Mind’s drive towards the Absolute. The singularity at the beginning of time, reflects the state to which each former stage in this previous series collapsed, and once again, began to expand. The infinite density of the singularity is explained by B’s having obtained to the Absolute at the final, critical stage of this series, in which B split off from X (the divergent mass of forces generated in its drive towards the Absolute. B equals, as the definition is given by the Causal Principle, a pure dynamic force of mind. At its ultimate beginning it is in its simplest possible state of being (as Hegel has it), but at the end of the series, it achieves its most dynamic and most intense possible state as a force of Mind equal to the Absolute. At this critical stage it has split off from the mass of the universe and it begins to take this mass the design it according to its Absolute will. The universe has taken on a design orchestrated by this Mind.
It is not simply coincidental that I’ve referred to Kant. Kant described how such principles as those enumerated above could be possible and he laid the groundwork for them in his critical philosophy. Kant is not outdated. He was far ahead of his time, and in fact, so much so that he continues to be ahead of the thinking of most philosophers today who assume they stand on better ground.
I have read the other philosophers mentioned in the post immediately preceding this most recent post of mine.
I do not agree that it was Kant who was responsible for ‘idealism’ --he repudiates ‘idealism’ in his ‘Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics.’ And Kant also shuns ‘mystical metaphysics.’ All he wanted was something a priori, and with objective validity. The ‘Causal Argument’ outlined above can be argued against by many, I’m sure. But it is basically, a very sound philosophical argument. There are of course philosophical methods of arguing against a philosophical argument. Does the conclusion, for instance, follow necessarily from the premise? I say it does. Consequently, there is an Absolute Mind whom we can refer to as a Supreme Being … or God … or perhaps a First Cause … etc. Also, I am not against common sense. It has its place. But it does not have a place in arguing against the a priori principles outlined above … as Kant would say … anymore than it has a place arguing against a mathematical equation, or a principle of geometry.
End of Post
No they’re not relevant at all. Not when “guessing” nor “conjecture” is disallowed.
You’ve assumed that the universe is real. This is a guess, or, just conjecture. If it isn’t real, then what can cosmology tell us about ‘reality’? Nothing.
The funny thing is that this doesn’t really matter, for you. The universe may just be an illusion - an experience. However, this illusion of things is then available to be subjected to a similar kind of reasoning to the one that you have already supplied.
I would suggest that you revise your work with this in mind.
Can I suggest that you consider what you yourself mean by ‘real’?
You’ve assumed a dichotomy between ‘real’ and ‘imaginary’ or ‘illusion’… oh how the tables do turn!
Well, the experience of an object is not an object in itself. The experience of an object is a phenomena happening within awareness (or even the brain). The actual existence of an object is not dependent upon it being experienced - indeed it must exist independently of experience.
Hence, there is a dichotomy between an experienced world and a real world. And this dichotomy is a reasoned position, not an assumed one.
Oh how the tables come full circle!
I agree that you have attempted to reason your position…
However, tell me, do you see boundaries where there are none?
Does the table (just making an arbitrary object name up… first one I thought of) have an edge where you see it stop? Or could you potentially zoom in so far that there is no dicernable edge to the table anymore?
How can you be so sure that reality is as ‘seperate’ or ‘differentiated’ as you experience? If you can only ever have the experience of the outside world?
The dichotomy though reasoned, still has no more backbone than a snail or some other inverterbrate -
The object-in-itself, can never be experienced. The object-in-itself is the phenomena; the experience of the object.
Otherwise, there is just pure undifferentiated ‘reality’.
How could the object-in-itself ‘know’ it is the object-in-itself without an awareness (experience) of being-in-itself?
My point is, objects only become discerned, differentiated by the act of experience - before that, the table and the lamp are not a table and a lamp, they need to be experienced (whether physical or mental memory) before there is any sensical notion of ‘table’ and of ‘lamp’.
the whole thread here is supposed to be highlighting the concept of ‘God’ as an a priori logical form of argument;
is God the experience necessary for something to exist? (Berkelely sure thought so)
I think that without me there to think, things would not exist. Because ‘exist’ is another concept that is drawn from experience… and so, cannot be used to talk of a priori forms or concepts.
it is not given that ‘existence’ is something fundamental… How do you explain negation?
Sure my position may change regularly, but I will attempt to keep you on your toes, flay your reasoning to its core!
It is not my position that ‘reality’ is something external to whatever it is that we are (I’m a monistic idealist, but that’s another discussion). But it is my position that if finite material objects really exist, then they must do so separately from ‘me’ and separately from my perception of them. So, my experience of a tree, for example, is not the tree itself… and if there is nothing more than the experience of trees, then I am justified in being a monistic idealist.
That’s incorrect reasoning. If objects only exist when somebody is aware of them, then they necessarily cease to exist when nobody is aware of them. But if they had an independent reality of their own, this would not be the case.
The question of whether an object is self-aware is irrelevant regards its existence.
I’ve ran out of time and so cannot respond to your last few points. Not today anyway. But tell me, have I spoken to you before, on another forum?
A priori proof of God or a posteriori proof of God or any proof to anything first requires a definition of what the proof is for.
Since you did not provide that I will feel free to pick some.
The God Jehovah:
A God that created man to its own image mortal, fragile and bound to a microscopic fin layer of gas on a little rock between trillions of celestial giants.
Hey, good luck with this one.
The all knowing God:
One that created a predetermined universe and written all in a big book but still feels compelled to monitor all our activities and punish us for playing our assigned role.
Sounds like a bad Hollywood director.
The soul of the universe God:
This is the faintest of them all, I call it the God after science, since it gained this form after science has taken hold on the physical universe.
The one can not be unproven God makes it impossible to prove as well.
How convenient.
The purpose of the universe God:
My own assumption of a higher level of consciousness of the Universe.
This God can not be separated from us experiencing the universe and it is very much compatible with evolution, so I doubt you are interested in this one.
To the idea of a self induced God is an intriguing one. (assuming the Creator God)
If God must exist because we believe in it asserts that it did not exist before we started to believe in it ergo it did not exist before we did and could not create us or the universe therefor it is not God.