wo witnesses, namely a pure rational witness and another with empirical credentials” (p.571) and that this argument “is the greatest possible transcendental illusion”(p.571) and it “commits an ignoratio elenchi” (refutation by ignorance)(p.572). This argument can be deduced to nothing more than the pure reason that failed in the ontological argument, and yada yada, bla bla bla… All Kant really says in this refutation is that the cosmological argument uses inductive reasoning and is no more a proof that there is a God, then the fact that my arms hurts proves you punched me. One cannot deduce cause from effect. The physico-theological proof for God’s existence is the oldest proof. It is the proof that basically says the order of nature could not be an accident, there must be a creator. Kant gives this argument a surprising amount of credit, in that it is the “clearest and the most appropriate to common human reason.” (p.579) However, Kant states that the physico-theological argument cannot do more than give support to other proofs (such as the ontological), of which non can truly exist. As well, even if taken at face value, this argument can do little more than demonstrate the existence of an “architect” of the world (similar to what we might call mother nature), not a supreme creator. The leap from using this the empirical proof of an “architect” to a “creator” is done entirely through speculative reason, and can not be looked upon as being proof that there is a God.The value of Kant’s discussion is not so much that he refutes these arguments in particular, but that (to him at least) all so-called “proof” of the existence of God has been refuted and no other proof could ever be developed. This is because, to Kant, the ontological argument is the basis for all transcendental proof, and it has been disproved, and there can b...
