How does Kant support God’s existence? Essay

Immanuel Kant feels that no-one, human or otherwise, can know that god exists. This is collect to various flaws and necessities for gentlemans gentleman. For one, when we cannot have an a posteriori proof for immortals introduction due to the fact that it is completely dependent on our personal vex of the ball and, therefore, our gutss. This is not to be relied upon as we can n invariably con the reality for what it actually is only what it appears to us. Kant names the real world, the world we cannot see, the Noumenal arena. The world which we perceive through our senses is known to him as the Phenomenal World. The Phenomenal World is the panache it is as we cannot help but see the world in a spatio-temporal state of mind, as we are spatio-temporal beings ourselves.The Noumenal World is inexperienceable to us because it really is completely unknowable. Therefore, we cannot know perfections mankind as we cannot nettle correct a posteriori contentions for it, due to o ur biased and incorrect perception of the world around us. How constantly, Kant also feels that God must always remain a undeniable postulate of practical reason. This means that although we cannot, in both way, prove Gods existence, the world will only ever make sense if we postulate, or assume, that God exists. Kant also felt that Gods existence is beyond the experience of our five senses, and so we cannot ever know that He exists through either our senses and, through them, our mind. It is amongst these principles that Kants honorable argument for the existence of God is based.Kants argument for the existence of God is as follows firstly, it must be understood that the aim of all devotion is the Summum Bonum, or the highest easily. This highest unassailable is both moral perfection and perfect happiness. For the Summum Bonum to be getd, these must both be present, as one cannot be without the other. Morality, a universal concept, demands of us that we must aim for this Sum mum Bonum. We must all attempt to be perfectly good, attain moral perfection and the perfect happiness. However, we cannot by chance achieve this ultimate good. This is due to the fact that we are flawed, weak and contingent upon(p) beings, prone to mistakes and filled with imperfections. Although we may be able to strive towards rightfulness in our thought and conduct, we cannot achieve true happiness along with it to view perfection. We cannot achieve what we deserve for our efforts because we are not omnipotent.Therefore, we cannot hope to achieve this Summum Bonum. However, in Kants point of view, ought implies can. This means that if we are obliged to achieve the Summum Bonum, or highest good, then it must mean that it is achievable. Kant says it is a necessity committed with duty as a requisite to presuppose the possibility of this highest good. This means that because we are required by our sense of duty to hand over to bring about the Highest Good, it must, therefore, be a possibility it must be attainable. However, this poses a natural contradiction we cannot possibly hope to do something, and unless we are expected to do it, because we can. This means that we cannot achieve this ultimate good alone, but we must have outside help, from an external and omnipotent agency, or God. We also have an unlimited time to achieve this good in, immortality, which gives way to a definite afterlife. Therefore, Kant concludes, it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.In this argument, there are two major assumptions upon which the argument rests upon. These are that, firstly, there is an absolute moral order within the world. This is shown to us through both the Bible and Church teachings. Another of the major assumptions is that we, humanity as a whole, are responsible to some transcendent self, in our unconsciousness. This means that we do not feel guilt, do to morality, to our superior, equals or inferiors in society. Rather, all our guilt is towards God. We all account towards him.Therefore, although Kant feels that we cannot possibly prove Gods existence, he feels that His existence must be a necessary postulate for the world to make sense. He, therefore, doesnt necessarily make sense of Gods existence and support it using his moral argument, but, instead, he uses it to make sense of, and support, morality and why it exists. He had no conception of ever arguing towards the existence of God. Instead he vehemently hostile it, using our senses as our drawback in our arguments.