Although we are in the spiritual stage of whether god exists or not, “The cosmos is god’s representation.”
The origin of all virtue are god’s mind, and that of all evil are his body.
Those are an unit. Life is matter, and good and evil are not two. Exist only creature, mind and breath.
We say them “The Lord’s low”. Religion is exploration of god’s mind, and the science is exploration of his body.
The cosmos is a great ethical presentation; we can say religion and science is un unit.
Here, we want to try to show you simply Kant’s” criticism of practice theory” efficient for pious fraud.
Originally, the problem about whether god exists or not is foolish to argue with any more, because the cosmos lies ahead factually.
The argument whether god exists or not equals to the same argument about the cosmos.
When human acknowledge other person, they make out their face and build, voice and facial expression.
I think that no people argue about existence of other person who is in front of them.
The matter and the cosmos are god’s body. The mind express the cosmos is god’s mind, and it is interlinked to center of human life individually.
The world that god in center of mind pour out his soul the material cosmos.
Though god physically presents himself in front of our eyes, it is shame thing that we talk about his existence.
<Integrate Brahman and atman> Brahman and atman, basic principle of the cosmos are an unit.
Still, some people don’t understand, I want to verify Kant’s theory. Let me get this straight with you, this is a thought about more 200 years ago.
His “criticism of practice theory” is philosophy, which requested existence of god and imperishability of spirit for inevitable thing from moral, or ethics.
Kantianism is commonly called “moral proof”. Regardless of nation, race, and antique point, all nature admit and ethics for their need.
But on the hand they admit moral and ethics, on the other do not admit god and imperishability of spirit, what is call the world after we died, their view of life are inconsistent.
The philosophy demonstrated completely by knowledge. Moral and ethics are not realized from equation “Death equals to nothing”. People think virtue, wholeheartedness and kindness and charity are important.
But on one hand they say wholeheartedness and kindness are important, on the other they deny god and heaven.
Kant proved that “if they do so, their view of life are contradict”. Nobody go for virtue and justice, because of their death and for nothing, on condition death equals to nothing.
Egotists who choose benefit direction and think only profit themselves will increase.
He couldn’t care less criticism “You are selfish and arrogant.” from others. They are not in sanctuary from “death,” so they cannot escape, too.
If death means nothing, that criticism is ineffectual.
The critics also become “nothing”, they had better think only their own profit as egotist, if death is nothing.
Nobody are suited for justice and goodness, because they become “nothing”.
Most of them take catalepsy that they don’t understand existence of god or upper region, Kantianism does not forgive even it.
Some people jargonize “Consciousness is reflection of encephalon.”.
Consciousness reflects encephalon, thus, of course, only situation consciousness becomes nothing comes into being when brain stops its function by death and return to earth.
Despite this fact, agnostic says “I don’t understand.” against the world whose brain lost.
it is not clear but exist only position that the world after the brain lost is nothing.
Because after the brain lost, it cannot be said such a thing if it exists. Spirits live in heaven have no brain.
Because they have no body. But they have consciousness, of course.
Consequently, if they said contrary thing with the fact that is “Consciousness become nothing.”, or take ideological position to nothing, it will not be realized all: ethics or moral, justice or virtue by the premise.
It is Kant who preached that if they cannot help affirming and admitting moral, at least position, which go to nothing after they died, was not taken, and admitted, though they don’t understand god’s existence of heaven.
It can be said that Kant clarified irresponsibility of ideological position “die to become nothing” or “not knowing the world after death leads to atheism”.
It is not “If you are disable to understand, you are free from belief”.
At least god is eternal purpose common throughout human, belief is obligation. It is compulsion.
In Kantianism, it is called “moral command”.
Do their goodness are obligation, not free.
It is not whichever they want to do, goodness or bad behaviors, but doing goodness is obligation on your life.
Kant didn’t say “I proved god and heaven”, of course. He said it is impossible to prove it.
Though it is not target of study and it is impossible, if people cannot help admitting virtue and justice for important mind, god and imperishably of spirit is requested for important mind, god, justice, and value are not realized in this world.
Ethics does not come into being together equation “death equals to nothing”. So god and imperishability of spirit are not requested for inevitable thing from ethical view. This is Kant’s “moral proof”.
This is one point that the reason why Dostoevskii cannot help saying “Saying one side, I must admit them(god and imperishability of spirit), same as other side.”.
The reason Voltaire, who is philosopher said “If god didn’t exist, human had to create him by force” from only “moral proof”. This is Kantianism 200 years ago. Asking some person “You admit goodness and justice, don’t you? ”, most of them answer “Yes.”
The person says “No.” will be criticized morally. It means “You said that you admit justice or virtue.
If so,you cannot take your view of life which become nothing after you died.”. Though you don’t understand it, you must admit and believe god and heaven.
And, from ideological side, needless to say, the world couldn’t be denied by quibbling.
If being nothing after you died, egotism will be main.
Then, antique trait of atheism is egotism. Well, it is expressed surely. Of course, Kant’s this thought is pious fraud.
In the forefront low of god , like Nishida philosophy are criticized about pious fraud not denied, and they are highly regarded now.
Kant limited faith by knowledge, drew a clear line between religion and philosophy.
There is a criticism in this point, but the biggest criticism is “God does not live to maintain moral or ethics of human.”.
Kant was criticized in viewpoint for purpose and duty that human live for god, not god lives for human.
I think this is the best. But seeing many atheist or agnostic, Kant’s this philosophy has not concerned in evidence of god.
There are various ways, else. There are dozens of evidence, some are false, and others are true for pious fraud. But you must not misunderstand, god is not believed by you after he was proved.
If you think the process as depending on the matter and asking for word ahead, I can say that proof will not come eternally.
Because god couldn’t be proved material.
He only could be caught the relation respond to infinity between life and life.
The person who says “I believe god if he was proved.” cannot awake in faith, unfortunately.
The reason why I say is importance to live of human ourselves exist in “proof of existence of god”.
God is justice, law, love, universality, and virtue itself.
Human live to only prove that there are justice(god), virtue, mind in this world.
Birth of human is conception notice from god.
It means proof of existence is living importance of human.
Thus, believing god absolute and without condition, and go to this are eternal obligation.
The person who says “I believe god if he was proved.” cannot awake, unfortunately.
He is not such an existence. Not awaken to faith means living himself intact. The ego demand profit and pleasure inevitably, human cannot escape from hell or displeased feeling arose from infinite opposition.
This is now.
The person who believe god after he was proved is same as about justice, in other words, who is catching his mind in science property or material sphere will not be proved god eternal.
Believing justice is absolute and we believe absolute and without condition.
We believe them on this condition. Or, believing justice is on condition that justice proved materially?
Please keep your heart carefully. Nobody ask for material proof in justice, and believes after it is proved.
Nobody have not proved justice, human who believe it does not go scarce historically.
We have believed god absolute and no without condition, and we will also believe in the future. Therefore, Nishida philosophy says that the person who says,
“I don’t know god, but I only love and believe him is the most intelligent about god.”
And, not saying ideologically in this way, In fact, there are god and heaven.
They are meddling variously.
The whole world will change by concrete solution of world source of this inspiration.
It can be prophesied definitely.