Kant and the Cosmological Argument

[Jean65]

Hello!
I’m reading The Last Superstition and I’m studying the case for the cosmological argument. Ed doesn’t answer Kant’s criticism of this type of argument, in particular the claim that the cosmological argument ultimately depends on the ontological argument. Since the ontological is a failure, the cosmological argument should be a failure too.
What about that? Is there some philosophy geeks who can help?

 

[Rhubarb]

These people did a great overview : youtube.com/watch?v=gqrRl-1UT70

Kant’s objection comes from the nuances between the distinctions between what ‘kind’ of necessary we’re talking about, when we say that God necessarily exists. The rub (I think) that Kant was getting at is that the Cosmological Argument depends on a logically necessary being - the unmoved mover. The Ontological Argument is where the ‘maximally good being, who is logically necessary’ is concluded. So, rejecting the Ontological Argument’s conclusion rejects a premise that’s needed for the Cosmological Argument to succeed.

 

[Jean65]

I’m struggling a bit to understand.

The Cos Arg concludes that a necessary being must exist. It doesn’t depend on a necessary being, it makes this conclusion.
And then one must argue that this necessary being must be Supreme Perfection, that it must have Supreme Perfection’s characteristic. We equate this necessary being with God at the end.

In the Ont Arg, we consider the concept of Supreme Perfection, **and then ** we conclude that it is necessary being.

I think I’m missing something, but I can’t see what…

 

[Rhubarb]

The Cosmological Argument concludes that something necessary must exist - whatever started everything off. The Ontological Argument concludes that the necessary being must be God. According to Kant.

One problem is that if you accept the Cosmological Argument, but not the Ontological Argument (according to this set-up) then the necessary existence prior to causality doesn’t need to be God. It could be, for instance, the universe itself. Of course, this is just what is being asserted by Kant. Perhaps you disagree.

 

[Jean65]

I think I don’t agree with the argument.
I think the only way we can know the nature of the necessary Being is by a posteriori argumentation, and by experience-based argumentation. The ontological i a priori and completely conceptual.
We, as humans, cannot conclude that the non-existence of God is stupid therefore false, as the ontological argument tries to show. When someone really understands the concept of truth for example, he knows that to assume that to deny truth exists is obviously wrong. Because it is self evident! I think the argument can work only if the existence of God is evident (and it’s not as Aquinas demonstrated) and if you can really grasp the concept of God. Only God’s mind can achieve this, and not human’s mind.

 

[Rhubarb]

I think I don’t agree with the argument.
I think the only way we can know the nature of the necessary Being is by a posteriori argumentation, and by experience-based argumentation. The ontological i a priori and completely conceptual.
We, as humans, cannot conclude that the non-existence of God is stupid therefore false, as the ontological argument tries to show. When someone really understands the concept of truth for example, he knows that to assume that to deny truth exists is obviously wrong. Because it is self evident! I think the argument can work only if the existence of God is evident (and it’s not as Aquinas demonstrated) and if you can really grasp the concept of God. Only God’s mind can achieve this, and not human’s mind.

I don’t know exactly what you’re trying to say so I’ll take a stab at something I saw. Remember that the failure of an argument doesn’t disprove the conclusion. It just mean that particular argument fails to prove it. So, if the Ontological and Cosmological argument fails, it doesn’t mean that God’s existence is false.