Kant

[Veritas Aequitas]

The noumenal sense covers the idea of absolute perfection within sensibility and understanding.

What do you mean?

Empirical things exist.
A circle is an empirical thing.
A perfect circle is a limit [highest ideal] that can be thought but cannot be known or realized as real.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27513
A noumenon is an empirical limit that can be thought but cannot be known or realized as real.
In principle the noumenon cover the idea of perfection.

Point is, any empirical thing within 'sensibility and understanding' when extended to the furthest limit is a noumenal empirical thing.
E.g. Pure earth, pure water, pure iron, perfect circle, perfect man, whatever the highest empirical based ideal.

• By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
  We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
  B674

The above in B674 refer to the noumenal which Kant discussed in detail very earlier on in B311.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay you have finally conceded that God is possible to be real, just unlikely (as far as we can tell). Now was that so hard?

And 'noumenal sense' has nothing to do with 'perfection'.

Nope!

The above statement must be clearly qualified.

• 1. A god is possible to be real if defined within 'sensibility and understanding'.
  
  2. A God is impossible to be real if construed or reified from a transcendental idea.

Since this OP is about Kant, point 1 is irrelevant beside it is a very stupid claim.
Such a stupid claim is not mentioned in the Critique of Reason at all.
If you have average competence in Philosophy, you would not accept it all at.
Richard Dawkins do not have a philosophical background, thus his 1/7 probability reservations but even then he insisted it is absurd ultimately.

The hell are you talking about.
Anyone with average competence in philosophy will admit that God is a possibility to be real.

Then why are you an [a]theist and not an agnostic.
You are changing your mind?

If so that is understandable,

• Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
  https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

As people grow older their neurons would have atrophized greatly thus weakening the strength of the inhibitors to resist the impulse of the existential crisis that duped them into insisting God is real or possibly real.

This was what happened to Anthony Flew, the once world's most famous [a]theist who was duped into believing in God in the later part of his life as indicated in the research above.

If you are turning into being agnostic or theistic, the above is probably the reason.

[Atla]

The noumenal sense covers the idea of absolute perfection within sensibility and understanding.

What do you mean?

Empirical things exist.
A circle is an empirical thing.
A perfect circle is a limit [highest ideal] that can be thought but cannot be known or realized as real.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27513
A noumenon is an empirical limit that can be thought but cannot be known or realized as real.
In principle the noumenon cover the idea of perfection.

Point is, any empirical thing within 'sensibility and understanding' when extended to the furthest limit is a noumenal empirical thing.
E.g. Pure earth, pure water, pure iron, perfect circle, perfect man, whatever the highest empirical based ideal.

• By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
  We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
  B674

The above in B674 refer to the noumenal which Kant discussed in detail very earlier on in B311.

Why don't you just write in English? YES we don't find pure or perfect things in the noumenal (as far as we can tell), but what does it mean that 'The noumenal sense covers the idea of absolute perfection within sensibility and understanding'?

[Atla]

Nope!

The above statement must be clearly qualified.

• 1. A god is possible to be real if defined within 'sensibility and understanding'.
  
  2. A God is impossible to be real if construed or reified from a transcendental idea.

Since this OP is about Kant, point 1 is irrelevant beside it is a very stupid claim.
Such a stupid claim is not mentioned in the Critique of Reason at all.
If you have average competence in Philosophy, you would not accept it all at.
Richard Dawkins do not have a philosophical background, thus his 1/7 probability reservations but even then he insisted it is absurd ultimately.

The hell are you talking about.
Anyone with average competence in philosophy will admit that God is a possibility to be real.

Then why are you an [a]theist and not an agnostic.
You are changing your mind?

If so that is understandable,

• Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
  https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

As people grow older their neurons would have atrophized greatly thus weakening the strength of the inhibitors to resist the impulse of the existential crisis that duped them into insisting God is real or possibly real.

This was what happened to Anthony Flew, the once world's most famous [a]theist who was duped into believing in God in the later part of his life as indicated in the research above.

If you are turning into being agnostic or theistic, the above is probably the reason.

Because you confuse atheism (no belief in gods) with strong atheism (denial of gods).

Besides I do think that there are probably infinitely many 'godlike beings' across the multiverse, but that's not quite the same thing.

And stop projecting your own psychological defects on me already.

[Atla]

Thus Kantian Philosophy [from the deepest roots of humanity] has an intense practical intent in contrary to your pessimism and skepticism.

But you have also demonstrated why I've become so goddamn pessimistic. You, an average human, has spent years trying to achieve a state where you should be allowed to exists, you gave your best, and you still couldn't do it because of low intelligence. That's why humanity will probably end soon. It's not your fault, this world is simply like this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What do you mean?

Empirical things exist.
A circle is an empirical thing.
A perfect circle is a limit [highest ideal] that can be thought but cannot be known or realized as real.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27513
A noumenon is an empirical limit that can be thought but cannot be known or realized as real.
In principle the noumenon cover the idea of perfection.

Point is, any empirical thing within 'sensibility and understanding' when extended to the furthest limit is a noumenal empirical thing.
E.g. Pure earth, pure water, pure iron, perfect circle, perfect man, whatever the highest empirical based ideal.

• By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
  We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
  B674

The above in B674 refer to the noumenal which Kant discussed in detail very earlier on in B311.

Why don't you just write in English? YES we don't find pure or perfect things in the noumenal (as far as we can tell), but what does it mean that 'The noumenal sense covers the idea of absolute perfection within sensibility and understanding'?

We cannot find pure or perfect things in the noumenal as real things.

But in the noumenal sense we can only think [via reason] of the absolute perfection in relation to empirical things only within sensibility and understanding' e.g. an absolute perfect circle.
Empirical things within sensibility and understanding are real and possibly real things but the moment we use reason to extrapolate them as ideal things, then we are putting them within the noumenal realm.
As such an ordinary empirical circle [ring, hoop, and the likes] are phenomena, but if we think of perfect circle which can never be known or realized then such is a noumenon which exists as a limit.

[Atla]

Empirical things exist.
A circle is an empirical thing.
A perfect circle is a limit [highest ideal] that can be thought but cannot be known or realized as real.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27513
A noumenon is an empirical limit that can be thought but cannot be known or realized as real.
In principle the noumenon cover the idea of perfection.

Point is, any empirical thing within 'sensibility and understanding' when extended to the furthest limit is a noumenal empirical thing.
E.g. Pure earth, pure water, pure iron, perfect circle, perfect man, whatever the highest empirical based ideal.

• By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
  We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
  B674

The above in B674 refer to the noumenal which Kant discussed in detail very earlier on in B311.

Why don't you just write in English? YES we don't find pure or perfect things in the noumenal (as far as we can tell), but what does it mean that 'The noumenal sense covers the idea of absolute perfection within sensibility and understanding'?

We cannot find pure or perfect things in the noumenal as real things.

But in the noumenal sense we can only think [via reason] of the absolute perfection in relation to empirical things only within sensibility and understanding' e.g. an absolute perfect circle.
Empirical things within sensibility and understanding are real and possibly real things but the moment we use reason to extrapolate them as ideal things, then we are putting them within the noumenal realm.
As such an ordinary empirical circle [ring, hoop, and the likes] are phenomena, but if we think of perfect circle which can never be known or realized then such is a noumenon which exists as a limit.

Yeah I think you are mixing at least two different meanings of 'noumenon' there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus Kantian Philosophy [from the deepest roots of humanity] has an intense practical intent in contrary to your pessimism and skepticism.

But you have also demonstrated why I've become so goddamn pessimistic. You, an average human, has spent years trying to achieve a state where you should be allowed to exists, you gave your best, and you still couldn't do it because of low intelligence. That's why humanity will probably end soon. It's not your fault, this world is simply like this.

This is a matter of wisdom and spiritual quotient not intelligence quotient [IQ].

This is why the cultivation of the skill to maintain equanimity is very necessary. While maintaining a state of equanimity, one must be aggressive and interactive to deal with potential negative ends but at the same be able to be indifferent to whatever their consequences so as to optimize one well being within existing constraints.

The reality of the potential increasing trend of evil and violent acts of theism is along this vein of facts;


Why are so many people being subdued into being cowards in facing the above facts and its potential threat to humanity.

I believe proving God is an impossibility as real is a direct solution to the above.
If God is an impossibility to be real, therefore there is no real God to command theists to war against and kill non-theists. There will be ZERO evil and violence committed in the name of a God.

Yes, humans will continue to commit evil and violent acts, but at least we have resolved all theistic driven evil and violent acts, thus one less category of evil and violence.
Secular evil and violent acts can be resolved via various strategies.

[Atla]

Thus Kantian Philosophy [from the deepest roots of humanity] has an intense practical intent in contrary to your pessimism and skepticism.

But you have also demonstrated why I've become so goddamn pessimistic. You, an average human, has spent years trying to achieve a state where you should be allowed to exists, you gave your best, and you still couldn't do it because of low intelligence. That's why humanity will probably end soon. It's not your fault, this world is simply like this.

This is a matter of wisdom and spiritual quotient not intelligence quotient [IQ].

This is why the cultivation of the skill to maintain equanimity is very necessary. While maintaining a state of equanimity, one must be aggressive and interactive to deal with potential negative ends but at the same be able to be indifferent to whatever their consequences so as to optimize one well being within existing constraints.

The reality of the potential increasing trend of evil and violent acts of theism is along this vein of facts;


Why are so many people being subdued into being cowards in facing the above facts and its potential threat to humanity.

I believe proving God is an impossibility as real is a direct solution to the above.
If God is an impossibility to be real, therefore there is no real God to command theists to war against and kill non-theists. There will be ZERO evil and violence committed in the name of a God.

Yes, humans will continue to commit evil and violent acts, but at least we have resolved all theistic driven evil and violent acts, thus one less category of evil and violence.
Secular evil and violent acts can be resolved via various strategies.

1. God isn't impossible to be real, so you can't prove that
2. At the current intelligence level, a fully atheistic humanity will also go extinct

But nice try

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why don't you just write in English? YES we don't find pure or perfect things in the noumenal (as far as we can tell), but what does it mean that 'The noumenal sense covers the idea of absolute perfection within sensibility and understanding'?

We cannot find pure or perfect things in the noumenal as real things.

But in the noumenal sense we can only think [via reason] of the absolute perfection in relation to empirical things only within sensibility and understanding' e.g. an absolute perfect circle.
Empirical things within sensibility and understanding are real and possibly real things but the moment we use reason to extrapolate them as ideal things, then we are putting them within the noumenal realm.
As such an ordinary empirical circle [ring, hoop, and the likes] are phenomena, but if we think of perfect circle which can never be known or realized then such is a noumenon which exists as a limit.

Yeah I think you are mixing at least two different meanings of 'noumenon' there.

Yes, two different perspectives but not contradicting.
Note in B674 Kant mentioned pure empirical things which in one perspective is the noumenon. However this is not a serious premise along with Kant's main argument.
What Kant is most concern is B311 as supporting further premises to his conclusion;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

Kant explained the concept of the noumenon in appx. 20 pages of complex sentences.
Chapter III: THE GROUND OF THE DISTINCTION OF ALL Objects-In-General INTO PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA
You'll will need to read them all to understand [not necessary agree with] before you can credibly discuss what is the noumenon.

[Atla]

We cannot find pure or perfect things in the noumenal as real things.

But in the noumenal sense we can only think [via reason] of the absolute perfection in relation to empirical things only within sensibility and understanding' e.g. an absolute perfect circle.
Empirical things within sensibility and understanding are real and possibly real things but the moment we use reason to extrapolate them as ideal things, then we are putting them within the noumenal realm.
As such an ordinary empirical circle [ring, hoop, and the likes] are phenomena, but if we think of perfect circle which can never be known or realized then such is a noumenon which exists as a limit.

Yeah I think you are mixing at least two different meanings of 'noumenon' there.

Yes, two different perspectives but not contradicting.
Note in B674 Kant mentioned pure empirical things which in one perspective is the noumenon. However this is not a serious premise along with Kant's main argument.
What Kant is most concern is B311 as supporting further premises to his conclusion;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

Kant explained the concept of the noumenon in appx. 20 pages of complex sentences.
Chapter III: THE GROUND OF THE DISTINCTION OF ALL Objects-In-General INTO PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA
You'll will need to read them all to understand [not necessary agree with] before you can credibly discuss what is the noumenon.

No, I think you added a third one which Kant didn't intend. Noumenon as inherently perfect and pure things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. God isn't impossible to be real, so you can't prove that
2. At the current intelligence level, a fully atheistic humanity will also go extinct

But nice try

Note this;

• viewtopic.php?p=426223#p426223
  
  Nope!
  
  The above statement must be clearly qualified.
  1. A god is possible to be real if defined within 'sensibility and understanding'.
  
  2. A God is impossible to be real if construed or reified from a transcendental idea.
  
  Since this OP is about Kant, point 1 is irrelevant beside it is a very stupid claim.
  Such a stupid claim is not mentioned in the Critique of Reason at all.

Re your point 2,
I agree in theory.
But the fact is there is no way at the current level of wisdom, the world can be fully atheistic.
I have stated many times, at the current level theistic religions are the most efficient and optimal belief system to deal with the existential crisis and morality.
The existential crisis that duped people into theism is encoded in the DNA thus inherent and unavoidable. The only solution to modulate this primal theistic impulse is awaiting the evolution of rational and wisdom inhibitors. There is an increasing trend on this.

However note the trend of non-theism which is very noticeable [in the internet] in the West and everywhere. There is a continual growth of people moving towards non-theistic Buddhism. It has been reported church attendance has been dropping since a long time ago.

[Atla]

..

Well I think we can conclude this discussion with: you lack the minimum to participate on a philosophy forum.

Just one more thing, not even your 'transcendental reified God' is completely impossible to be real. You can't be sure that the world isn't magical/supernatural, whatever that means.

[Veritas Aequitas]

..

Well I think we can conclude this discussion with: you lack the minimum to participate on a philosophy forum.

Just one more thing, not even your 'transcendental reified God' is completely impossible to be real. You can't be sure that the world isn't magical/supernatural, whatever that means.

The "currency" of this forum are justified arguments with evidence.
Most of your points are bankrupt of arguments and evidences.

So far it is me who has been providing proper arguments and direct reference from Kant and elsewhere.
Thus to me this activity of discussion is of personal benefit in enriching my own knowledge base.

So far you have only provided flimsy supporting points from Wiki [ ] with no reference to the CPR or any of Kant's work. [note OP = Kant].

One critical point for you - why you are so driven to be God's apologist is due your being duped by your faculty of pure reason in reifying an illusion as real. It would be beneficial to you if you are to 'smack' this deceptive kid in your mind and educate it with higher knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah I think you are mixing at least two different meanings of 'noumenon' there.

Yes, two different perspectives but not contradicting.
Note in B674 Kant mentioned pure empirical things which in one perspective is the noumenon. However this is not a serious premise along with Kant's main argument.
What Kant is most concern is B311 as supporting further premises to his conclusion;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

Kant explained the concept of the noumenon in appx. 20 pages of complex sentences.
Chapter III: THE GROUND OF THE DISTINCTION OF ALL Objects-In-General INTO PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA
You'll will need to read them all to understand [not necessary agree with] before you can credibly discuss what is the noumenon.

No, I think you added a third one which Kant didn't intend. Noumenon as inherently perfect and pure things.

Kant did not state that specifically but my inference from what Kant stated in related matter is very relevant.

1.A circle is an empirical concept and thing.
2. A circle [empirical concept] that is perfect [reasoned] can be thought but cannot be known and realized in reality.
3. The noumenon has both the quality of 1 and 2.
4. Therefore a perfect circle is a noumenon in that qualified perspective.