Kant

[seeds]

Please read the following definition of Kant’s “thing-in-itself” from Wictionary:

thing-in-itself
Noun.

thing-in-itself (plural things-in-themselves)

(from Kantian philosophy on) A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

Synonym: noumenon
Antonym: phenomenon

And then this from the Collins English Dictionary:

thing-in-itself
noun

(in the philosophy of Kant) an element of the noumenal rather than the phenomenal world, of which the senses give no knowledge but whose bare existence can be inferred from the nature of experience

With the above definitions in mind, one example I like to use for visualizing the meaning of the term “noumenon” can be seen in the Double Slit Experiment.

When a series of single electrons are shot through the double slits, what transpires in the space between the double-slitted wall and that of the detection screen is the perfect example of something that is “postulated by practical reason”...

(in other words, postulated as something that had spread-out into a wave by reason of the phenomenally observable interference pattern on the screen)

...but, at the time of transit, existed in a condition which is in principle unknowable and (especially) unexperienceable with our senses.

And the point is that it is literally impossible for us to directly know, or to directly experience (again, with our five senses) the true status of the electrons - (as they really are) - as they travel from wall-to-screen.

Even though we know (by “practical reasoning”) that something about the electrons is waving, we can only “infer” what is really taking place.

Now granted, I may be taking a bit of license with Kantian terminology, however, to me, the above analogy seems like a fairly simple way of helping us to visualize the meaning of the word “noumenon.”

There is a much simpler way without opening up the can of worms that is QMechanics.
If I see a mug on the next table I shall see an arc supported by two straight lines that support a circle. The edges of those lines have shading towards the middle.
This is the phenomenon of the "mug".
At this point I might be wrong - it may not be a mug at all.
But I build up a 3D picture and add a third dimension; I even had a handle to the other unsighted side. In most cases the mind builds and interprets a whole mug.
What we have here is a phenomenon. The noumenal mug has a lot more information hidden from my senses. Not only its full shape but the internal structures, of molecules of the pottery and the surface glaze. The facts of the mug, hidden from our senses, can go much deeper
With such simple illustrations Kant cautions us not to take for granted our simple sense perceptions; the taken for granted...

Yeah, I really don’t see that as being “much simpler.”

But that’s okay, because it might resonate with someone in a way that mine doesn’t. So it’s all good.

The bottom line is, the more analogies the better.
_______

[seeds]

However (and I mean you no offense Veritas), after being exposed to your silly and shallow arguments about how you have proven the impossibility of the existence of a real God,...

...I could never trust anything you have to say in regards to your own personal interpretation of any aspect of Kant’s philosophy.

Re the impossibility of the existence of God as real, this is on the Kant's giant shoulders. Kant demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God, as in the CPR, i.e.

• Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason .... 485
  ...
  Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ...500
  Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ......507
  .....Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
  Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
  CPR content -Norman Kemp Smith

What I merely extended and added from Kant's Philosophy is 'God is an impossibility to be real' based on Kant's view, there is no way one can prove God existence.

Atla already (and accurately) pointed out to you that just because humans cannot prove that a real God exists, it does not mean that the existence of a real God is impossible.

In which case, there is nothing “merely” about what you have added (deduced) from Kant’s philosophy.

Because unless you can provide us with a direct quote from Kant where he specifically states that “God is an impossibility to be real,” then you are just using Kant...

(or, rather, your own dubious interpretation of something Kant has said)

...to support your personal war on theism (especially that of Islam).

(As a side note, I have provided an argument as to why irrefutable proof of God’s existence might literally be forbidden (by God) because such knowledge could potentially cause the ending of all human life on planet Earth, here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22708&start=615#p336360)

Point is, for Kant,

• 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
  2. God is the thing-in-itself
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real

All my supporting premises are from Kant's philosophy.

Again, give us a direct quote from Kant where he unambiguously states that “the thing-in-itself is impossible to be real,”...

...as opposed to what he seems to be saying, which is that the thing-in-itself (the noumenon) is something that is impossible to directly experience with our senses.

There is a vast difference between those two assertions.

Not to mention that Atla provided you with what I presume is a Kantian quote:

"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears"

...in which Kant clearly implies that it would be illogical (absurd) to assume that appearances (phenomena) are founded upon nothingness.

For Kant the only possibility for God existence is a reasoned God, i.e. not a real God, thus his Deism.

Right.

And that’s because due to the impossibility of “proving” God’s existence, humans have no other choice but to come up with “reasoned” theories about God.

And unless I misunderstood what I have read about Kant (which is quite possible), Kant felt that the belief in the existence of God, along with the existence of freedom and immortality (regardless of any of those things being real or not), is necessary for helping to maintain human morality.

And that is my simplistic understanding of what I assume is the underlying sentiment implicit in one of his famous quotes:

“I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”

However (and again), none of Kant’s theories (and, especially, none of your personal interpretations of Kant’s theories) in any way prove that a real God (a real Creator of the universe) is an impossibility.

For some inexplicable reason (sheer bullheadedness? blinkers adjusted too narrowly?), you just can’t seem to comprehend that simple and obvious fact.

I extend further, the only possibility of God's existence as real is purely a psychological one and I have provided evidences and justifications for that.

I tell you what, Veritas, you can continue to “extend further” (i.e., add your own personal interpretations of Kant’s philosophy) until the proverbial cows come home.

However, as I have stated on several occasions, I have already debunked your flawed “evidences and justifications,” here - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&start=75#p369067 - in the thread where you officially began this nonsense.

And your response in return was this:

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Oh the irony.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

...
And that is my simplistic understanding of what I assume is the underlying sentiment implicit in one of his famous quotes:

“I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”

However (and again), none of Kant’s theories (and, especially, none of your personal interpretations of Kant’s theories) in any way prove that a real God (a real Creator of the universe) is an impossibility.

For some inexplicable reason (sheer bullheadedness? blinkers adjusted too narrowly?), you just can’t seem to comprehend that simple and obvious fact.

I extend further, the only possibility of God's existence as real is purely a psychological one and I have provided evidences and justifications for that.

I tell you what, Veritas, you can continue to “extend further” (i.e., add your own personal interpretations of Kant’s philosophy) until the proverbial cows come home.

However, as I have stated on several occasions, I have already debunked your flawed “evidences and justifications,” here - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&start=75#p369067 - in the thread where you officially began this nonsense.

And your response in return was this:

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Oh the irony.
_______

Given that we are all average, it is obvious a person [me or anyone] who had studied Kant full time for >3 years would understand Kant better [albeit not 100% certain] than the ones [Atla and Seeds] who had merely scratch the surface of Kant's philosophy.

For all the point re Atla you mentioned, I have countered them with justifications and references directly from Kant. Re 'appearance without thing appearing' Atla quote missed out the note re thing-in-themselves and do not take into account the context of the preface.

Re your quote;
“I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”

If you have read Kant's Preface you would have read Kant's warning against action such as yours, i.e. quoting out of context to the whole of the CPR, i.e.

• If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
  B xliv

Read the above carefully,
Point is you have not mastered the idea of the Whole, thus your very immature counters against my points.

Here is the quote of Bxxx - CPR from my file;

• I have therefore found it necessary to deny (aufheben) Knowledge Wissen in order to make room for Faith. [Glaube.]1
  Bxxx

The critical point when reading Kant is the translation of German words to English which is very problematic. If you understand this limitation, you would ensure you don't take the translated literally as the intended meaning especially when the statement is so blatantly controversial.

Here is one commentary on 'What is "aufheben?"

You will find as with most things having to do with eighteenth century Kant, that many (namely ideas) come from agriculture and are mainly about four things: fields, horses, carts, and cows.
And this one too is no exception, which in order to really see how, you will find it necessary to correct the translation, and firstly because there is no any “denying” and there can't be because if there were, then you would need to be able to make sense of denying laws of nature, for example denying gravity or even more generally, denying existence of objects in space, or changes happening in time etc, which is absurd.
Therefore if Kant was not involving himself with absurd nonsense, then he was not talking about denying knowledge.
So what then was he talking about? what did he have to do to knowledge? What is “aufheben?” [deny]

The above commentary went further to explain the various perspectives of 'aufheben' which has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of 'deny' in English.

Knowledge Wissen and Glaube faith or belief also has very extensive meanings and cannot be taken in the ordinary English sense.

Another critical point is you need to take above in the context of its presence within a PREFACE which is a very short summary of the WHOLE Critique of Pure Reason.
The 2nd Preface is 20 pages long with the following main contents, i.e.

• 1. Faculty of Reason
  2. Metaphysics
  3. Morality
  4. Various notes to the CPR

The quote " ... deny (aufheben) Knowledge Wissen in order to make room for Faith. [Glaube.]" is in the later part of the Preface and confined to Morality.

As you have stated,

• ".. Kant felt that the belief in the existence of God, along with the existence of freedom and immortality (regardless of any of those things being real or not), is necessary for helping to maintain human morality."

The deny of knowledge refer to the above metaphysical knowledge which was supposedly claimed to be the Queen of Science then during Kant's time.

Thus the quote '..deny knowledge [metaphysical] ..." is for the purpose of grounding morality and has no support any point that God is a possibility and real.

I had already stated Kant did not write anywhere 'God is an impossibility to be real'.
However if we dig a bit deeper we can infer from Kant's work 'God is an impossibility to be real' and applying our own effort of philosophical proper.

I have provided the argument here;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
So far there is no convincing counter to the above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Seeds;

Here is a Summary of the 2nd Preface;
( I have done a summary and flowchart for almost all chapters and sub-sections of the CPR to facilitate easier understanding and recall)

• PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION - Critique of Pure Reason
  [Bvii]
  Summary
  No.s refer to pages of the translation.
  17 Focus is on Knowledge within Faculty of Reason
  17 How to make Knowledge-Reason as justifiable as Science? 17
  18 Logic, a sure path but limited due to subtraction, abstraction. 18
  18 Logic is only a tool (vestibule) of Science 18
  18 If Reason as Science, then its Objects must be a priori 18
  19 Mathematics and Physics, their Objects are a priori. 19
  20 Natural Science - a valid Science – sudden intellectual revolution 20
  21 Metaphysics – uncertain Science - a groping among mere Concepts 21
  21 Why the failure of Metaphysics, perhaps we have thus far failed to find the true path.
  22 Refer and use success of Mathematics and natural Science on metaphysic
  22 Knowledge Conform To Objects –failed, why not Objects Conform To Our Knowledge. To adopt Copernicus' approach on Intuition Of Objects
  24 Supersensible not for Speculative Reason, but Practical [Moral] Knowledge of Reason can exceed Limit Of Possible Experience. 24
  25 What Forces Reason to go beyond the Limits of Experience is the The Unconditioned – which Reason by Necessity and by Right, Demands the completion the Series Of Conditions, to the Thing-in-Themselves. 25
  25 Purpose of this Critique 25
  26 Advantage of Metaphysics, capable of acquiring Exhaustive Knowledge of its entire field. It ONLY has to deal with Principles and their Limits and its Completeness. 27
  26 Metaphysic Primary Use – as a negative warning, not beyond Limits of Experience 26
  26 Positive use beyond Sensibility, use for Principles of Moral. 26
  27 We cannot know, but at least can think of Things-in-Themselves 27
  28 Human will, free and not free, Soul, 28
  29 Morality and Freedom of Will 29
  29 Deny Knowledge to make room for faith.
  30 There will always be Metaphysics, Philosophy to support metaphysic by rooting out its error at source 31
  30 Metaphysics downgrade of superiority only effect the ‘Schools’ 31
  32 Critique is rational Dogmatic itself but with own Criticism. Pure/blind Dogmatism is Procedure of Pure Reason without Criticism of its own Power.
  32 Criticism –its usefulness, restraint skepticism, Dogmatism, other -isms?
  33 This CPR to follow Wolff’s orderly, Systematic methodology 33
  34 Importance of the PARTs in WHOLE & vice versa.
  34 Independent External World –scandal to Philosophy 34
  34 Changes in 2nd Edition, Commentary on approach to 2nd edition 34
  37 Kant intent for Metaphysics of Nature and Moral to confirm CPR and CPragR
  37 A Philosophical Work must be United in a System. One to master the idea of the Whole and not taken in parts.

So don't try to pull a fast one on me if you have not mastered the WHOLE argument of the CPR.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have the most quirky and inaccurate idea about Kant.
You reduce him to a parlour game and have no historical context, nor clear understanding of him.

Is the above, the best you can do?
As usual the above are merely opinions.
Show me references from Kant to justify your points?

I have already laid down 100% of the contents of the CPR above, thus ready to deal with every point therein, including any historical element.

Btw, there is no question raised on the historical context.
Kant's personal philosophical history was, he was a dogmatic rationalist until he was woken from his dogmatic slumber by Hume's empiricism [also dogmatic]. He went on to take the Middle road which was his Copernican Revolution, i.e.

• Hitherto [philosophical realism up to Kant] it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
  But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
  
  We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
  This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
  
  We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
  Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. (B xvi)
  
  A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
  (B xvii)

The above Copernican Revolution can be traced back to Protagoras, Heraclitus et al versus Parmides et. al.

Since you think you are so smart, what have you to show?

His "Copernican turn" is not literally about cosmology FFS, so a reference to Heraclitus is not relevant. This sums up your failure to grasp the rudiments of his epistemology.
Your take on Kant is superficial. It's pointless bandying words with you.

No wonder.
It is so obvious his "Copernican turn" is an analogy linked historically back to Heraclitus versus Parmides, i.e. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.
So far you have not provided any rational argument against my points with references directly from Kant.
What you have done is merely waving your opinions from nowhere, that is intellectual cowardice.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since you deny the value of categories you can't establish the difference between a Whackjob and evolution.

I didn't deny the VALUE of categories. I rejected the ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE of categories.

HAHA.
Even worse, categories have no existence whatever. You are a joke. Kant had two basic categories; time and space. You obviously don't know where the f u c k you are nor when the f u c k you are. You are as confused as you seem.

You are ignorant on this.
In Kant's schema, time and space are not 'categories'.
Time and space are a priori basic intuitional elements.
It is very obvious if one draw a flowchart of the whole of the CPR.

• In the course of this investigation it will be found that there are two Pure Forms of Sensible Intuition, serving as Principles of a priori Knowledge, namely, Space and Time. B36

The Pure Intuition of Time & Space are distinguished from Categories as implied here;

• What must first be Given -- with a view to the a priori Knowledge of all Objects is -- the Manifold of Pure Intuition;
  the second factor involved is the Synthesis of this Manifold by means of the Imagination. But even this does not yet yield Knowledge.
  The Concepts which give Unity to this Pure Synthesis, and which consist solely in the Representation of this necessary Synthetic Unity, furnish the third requisite for the Knowledge of an Object; and they rest on the Understanding. B104
  …
  On this account we are entitled to call these Representations, Pure Concepts of the Understanding, and to regard them [Categories] as applying a priori to Objects -- a conclusion which General Logic is not in a position to establish.
  …
  These Concepts [Pure Concepts of the Understanding] we shall, with Aristotle, call Categories, for our primary purpose is the same as his, although widely diverging from it in manner of execution.
  B105

The above distinction between Space & Time as pure intuition and they are not 'categories' are presented and mentioned all over the whole book.

Your lack of precision in this fundamental area of the CPR is indication of the degree of your understanding of Kant's CPR.

[Skepdick]

You are ignorant on this.
In Kant's schema, time and space are not 'categories'.
Time and space are a priori basic intuitional elements.

That's hardly the point. The question is "should they be treated as such?"

You have a rule by which you have determined that time is somehow different from space. Effectively you have created two categories.

But is time really different from space and how?

Right now, you can choose to remain static in space, but you can't choose to remain static in time.
But what if you could choose? If you choose to remain static in time, then is time the same as space?

This is Turing's paradox

Your lack of precision in this fundamental area of the CPR is indication of the degree of your understanding of Kant's CPR.

Why would I want to understand Kant in 2019, when i can trivially dismiss Kant in 2019?

[Atla]

So I started reading Kant (in German) to see what all the fuss is about, holy shit every sentence of this guy is like a paragraph long..

[Atla]

For all the point re Atla you mentioned, I have countered them with justifications and references directly from Kant. Re 'appearance without thing appearing' Atla quote missed out the note re thing-in-themselves and do not take into account the context of the preface.

Seems like you misunderstood the note as well. Kant states that a thing-in-itself COULD be real as an object (we could think it to be real), when there is real possibility for it from the practical. Like a physical table I guess.

The limiting function doesn't prohibit the thing-in-itself from existing, it is a limiting function on the pretensions of sensibility.

There is a reason why Kant never wrote something utterly solipsistic like "The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real".

Besides how do you want to eradicate all evil and save the world, whene from everyone else's point of view, you are just a thing-in-itself and therefore impossible to be real?

[Sculptor]

Yeah, I really don’t see that as being “much simpler.”

But that’s okay, because it might resonate with someone in a way that mine doesn’t. So it’s all good.

The bottom line is, the more analogies the better.
_______

So you don't think a "mug" is more simple than Quantum Mechanics?
Okay?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So I started reading Kant (in German) to see what all the fuss is about, holy shit every sentence of this guy is like a paragraph long..

If you read further on, many sentences are as long as half a page or even longer.
This is why I have to download the book into Microsoft Word and parse the parts of the sentences appropriate to find out which part is connected to its respective part.
Thus that is the reason it is generally accepted that one need 3 years full time to understand [not necessary agree] with Kant.
The knowledge therein the CPR is 'epiphanic' thus worth the time invested.

For all the point re Atla you mentioned, I have countered them with justifications and references directly from Kant. Re 'appearance without thing appearing' Atla quote missed out the note re thing-in-themselves and do not take into account the context of the preface.

Seems like you misunderstood the note as well. Kant states that a thing-in-itself COULD be real as an object (we could think it to be real), when there is real possibility for it from the practical. Like a physical table I guess.

The limiting function doesn't prohibit the thing-in-itself from existing, it is a limiting function on the pretensions of sensibility.

There is a reason why Kant never wrote something utterly solipsistic like "The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real".

Besides how do you want to eradicate all evil and save the world, whene from everyone else's point of view, you are just a thing-in-itself and therefore impossible to be real?

Your lack of reading Kant is a handicapped in attempting to counter my points.

Kant did not write precisely,
"The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real".
But once you understand Kant, the point above is logically obvious.

Kant definition of reality is this;

• Reality [Category re Quality], in the Pure Concept of Understanding, is that which corresponds to a Sensation-in-General; it is that, therefore, the Concept of which in-itself points to being (in Time). (CPR A143/B182)

The thing-in-itself has nothing to do with Sensation-in-General.
Therefore thing-in-itself is impossible to be real [as defined above].

Reasonable peace will not happen during this or next generation, but perhaps the next-next generation.
However, it is inherent in the human DNA, there is a potential in all to strive for peace. The limitation is this striving for peace is not yet active in all humans. However there is already a sliver of a rising trend [evident] within humanity toward peace.
Thus what we need is a principled and systematized model to expedite the process.

I am optimistic the above trend is accelerating due to the trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology as seen the present.

[seeds]

...unless you can provide us with a direct quote from Kant where he specifically states that “God is an impossibility to be real,” then you are just using Kant...

(or, rather, your own dubious interpretation of something Kant has said)

...to support your personal war on theism (especially that of Islam).

I had already stated Kant did not write anywhere 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

However if we dig a bit deeper we can infer from Kant's work 'God is an impossibility to be real' and applying our own effort of philosophical proper.

In other words, if “we” (meaning “you”) are someone who has already made up their mind that “God is an impossibility to be real,” then just like any biased researcher, they can always find some way of twisting the words of others (“infer” something that’s not truly there) to fit their agenda.

I have provided the argument here;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
So far there is no convincing counter to the above.

In light of that last sentence, I think now would be a good time to reference some extremely salient and insightful advice provided to us by a self-proclaimed expert on Kant:

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Again, Veritas, I have countered and debunked your argument in the following link - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&start=75#p369067

The fact that you refuse to allow the debunking to “convince” you of there being a serious problem with your reasoning, is simply a sign of the depth and degree of your emotional investment in your theory.
_______

[seeds]

So you don't think a "mug" is more simple than Quantum Mechanics?
Okay?

Like I said, the more analogies the better, and for someone else, your particular analogy might resonate better (be more mentally accessible) than my analogy.

However, if for the sake of some friendly philosophical banter you would like to do a comparison, then let’s take a deeper look at what you said about the mug:

The noumenal mug has a lot more information hidden from my senses. Not only its full shape but the internal structures, of molecules of the pottery and the surface glaze. The facts of the mug, hidden from our senses, can go much deeper...

In my opinion, in order for us to understand what the word “noumenon” truly means...

(or, at least, what it “seems” to mean)

...then we must recognize that there is a huge difference between a situation where information is merely hidden from our senses (as in the case of your mug),...

...and that of a situation in which information is literally inaccessible to our senses (as in the case of what’s taking place in the space between the slitted wall and that of the screen of the Double Slit Experiment).

With that in mind, please describe how the hidden information to which you are referring in your description of the mug, is literally inaccessible to our senses.

In other words, tell us why under no circumstances could we ever directly experience with our senses (or some scientifically devised extension of our senses), the hidden features of the mug, as per your description.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

...unless you can provide us with a direct quote from Kant where he specifically states that “God is an impossibility to be real,” then you are just using Kant...

(or, rather, your own dubious interpretation of something Kant has said)

...to support your personal war on theism (especially that of Islam).

I had already stated Kant did not write anywhere 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

However if we dig a bit deeper we can infer from Kant's work 'God is an impossibility to be real' and applying our own effort of philosophical proper.

In other words, if “we” (meaning “you”) are someone who has already made up their mind that “God is an impossibility to be real,” then just like any biased researcher, they can always find some way of twisting the words of others (“infer” something that’s not truly there) to fit their agenda.

I have provided the relevant argument.
You can prove me wrong by showing Kant did not make those references I quoted from Kant or I had interpreted it wrongly.

I had pointed out the wrong interpretations of Kant's
-your 'deny knowledge to make room for faith'
-Atta's 'appearance without something appearing'
-Sculptors wrong labeling of time and space as 'categories.'

If you want to counter me on Kant, just show me where I am wrong with reference to Kant's works.

I'll will have a look at the other point.
Again, Veritas, I have countered and debunked your argument in the following link - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&start=75#p369067
If I am not mistaken, I have already countered that in subsequent post in that thread.

You raised the point earlier -A;

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?

As was pointed out by atto, your problem lies in the false assumption implicit in P2 of your syllogism.

God does not have to meet some ideal form of “perfection.”

He (or she, or it, or whatever term you wish to use) simply needs to be in possession of the attributes necessary for creating a universe.

The idea of God needing to be “perfect” falls within the same category of false assumptions that insist that in order to qualify for the title of “God,” an entity must also be in possession of impossible levels of omniscience and omnibenevolence, for example,...

...all of which is just human-contrived nonsense.
_______

I have countered that with B, i.e. why God must be perfect;

viewtopic.php?p=367897#p367897
Note as mentioned in the OP, an imperfect God would be a potential loser to a God that is claimed to be perfect.
Note my argument above why a less than perfect God is an inferior God which most theists will not accept because such an inferior God will be ridiculed by theists who believe in a more superior or perfect God. Note how the Abrahamic believers condemned the pagans and those who pray to a God represented by idols, etc.

This is why the more smarter advisers [theologians, clergy] of theists resort to the ontological God to avoid in believing in a lesser than perfect God which is vulnerable to be ridiculed. It is also very instinctual [especially theists] to ensure their God is one-up on the God of others.

Another point is a less than perfect God will be exposed to the problem of infinite regression.

You did not counter my above response but rather raised -C
viewtopic.php?p=369067#p369067
which is not a counter to B but merely repeat the first response (A) of yours.

Your belief you have debunked my argument is a falsehood and oversight. That was why I kept asking you for your counter arguments.

I suggest you read my post B again and provide a counter for that.

Note, DNA wise it is inherent in all humans to strive for "perfection" or even imagined 'perfection'.
But the best theological philosophers has come up with an undisputable reasoned-perfection and attributed that to their God - the ontological God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In my opinion, in order for us to understand what the word “noumenon” truly means...

(or, at least, what it “seems” to mean)

...then we must recognize that there is a huge difference between a situation where information is merely hidden from our senses (as in the case of your mug),...

...and that of a situation in which information is literally inaccessible to our senses (as in the case of what’s taking place in the space between the slitted wall and that of the screen of the Double Slit Experiment).

With that in mind, please describe how the hidden information to which you are referring in your description of the mug, is literally inaccessible to our senses.

In other words, tell us why under no circumstances could we ever directly experience with our senses (or some scientifically devised extension of our senses), the hidden features of the mug, as per your description.

Yes, in your opinion, i.e. very blind opinion especially when you have not understood Kant thoroughly.

Kant wrote of Possible Experience;

• All our Knowledge falls within the Bounds of Possible Experience, and just in this Universal Relation to Possible Experience consists that Transcendental Truth which precedes all Empirical Truth and makes it Possible. B185

The noumenon aka thing-in-itself is beyond the empirical and thus cannot be a possible experience and knowledge.

If there are hidden things from our senses, we need to ask whether it is within possible experience or not.

Anything that has testable and verifiable empirical-philosophical qualities are within possible experiences, thus possible to be real.
We can speculate about space and time [a priori intuition] wherever they are, e.g. within a quantum location or a billion light years away, they are possible to be real and merely awaiting evidence to be tested and verified to be real.

If we speculate something like a square-circle, then that cannot be a possible to be real and experienced because that is beyond the empirical and a contradiction.
The noumenon whilst not a contradiction is similar, i.e. it is beyond possible experience thus an impossibility and cannot be real.
Kant proved God as defined by theists is a thing-in-itself, thus not possible to be experienced, an impossibility and cannot be real.

How the human mind jumped to conclude God aka a thing-in-itself is due desperate internal psychology exuding from an existential crisis. A shade lesser is Hume's psychology of the false absolute reality or certainty of causality.