@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;98050 wrote:I would like to hear more about your theory. Not because I am looking for some almighty replacement, but because my mind is always open to speculation.
Immanuel Kant offered a challenge in his "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Prolegomena" for speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to what he called a 'science of metaphysics.' My own interpretation of what Kant meant by a science was a system of reasoning (a priori -or pure, in the sense that the judgments that would comprise such a science would not be derived from experience, but from reason alone). I could give you an example, but when I have the time I'll post my answer to Kant. It's called "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." It's a self-contained theory (but my viewpoint which may be considered biased, being the author, is that it does present the one and only possible solution to the question of the origin of spacetime, matter, and mind, or consciousness).
Kant also speaks about a synthesis of pure understanding in his critical philosophy. There are an abundance of Kantian speculations as well in both the works mentioned above. Kant provided both direction and clues to what I've formulated, not just by following his direction and his clues, but by thinking through the system. It's a necessary, straightforward line of reasoning. My argument will be that it satisfies Kant's critical demands. It will be for others to show where this is not so, if it's possible. I'm open to criticism, but my argument will be that the argument as a whole, is infallible --strong words, huh!
When I post the argument the thread will be titled: "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." And I'll make reference to Kant in the argument, as well as Hegel, and Hume. The argument also necessitates that the universe did begin with a singularity, and the big bang did happen; although it only supports it by way of a pure philosophical argument; not through bringing up the scientific evidence in support of the big bang. It also supports what science has been able to discover about the past history of the earth and the progression towards higher life forms.
The argument consists of four a priori principles (philosophers can argue whether indeed they are a priori -I simply claim that they are, according to Kant's definition of a priori) ... the Causal Principle, the Principle of Divergence, the Principle of Equal Relation, and the Principle of Progressive Design. All the principles follow necessarily, one from the other and the premise of the argument follows to the final conclusion, necessarily. There is no guess work, only a general philosophical theory, that's the equivalent to a mathematical theory --only here there is no use of numbers, there are only four principles derived from pure reason.