Kant

[Eodnhoj7]

If the "I" is labeled through the "I" and the "I" is assumed, then are labels strictly variations of one "assumption"?

Whether the assumption is assumed or not - you are still reading these very words.

The assumption caused them.

Actually the assumption did not strictly cause them alone, considering as assumed they are strictly "taken as is". Causality is an observation of connection, a looping of cause through itself, where cause variates into effect with effect being a cause in itself.

To say "emptiness" is a "cause" (when assumptions are fundamentally empty) is to say cause is fundamentally empty form and we are left with causality being a loop where emptiness is less of a cause but rather "form" as the voiding of emptiness is. Cause is subject to not just a loop in definition, as to describe causality requires the fallacy of circularity, but an actual form of a loop where:

1. The repitition of a thought, emotional experience or action creates a self referential pattern that forms the observer's perspective where the act of observation, in containing reality through a specific value system (as a continuum of certain looping qualties), effectively maintains both the identity of the observer while acting as a "filter" that determines how reality is assumed.

2. The containment of emptiness, or void, through form necessitates a circularity as self referentiality where even the forming of further loops is still an act of looping that is circular thus necessitating the nature of the loop as not just static form but a dynamic process conducive to what we can call "quality" where the subject/object dichotomy is connected through a reciprocality.

3. Quality, as a continuum akin to a dynamic state, necessitates not just reptition (as all repitition is foundationally what a continuum "is") but is "indefinite" or "infinite" in the respect it is continuous. This continuous nature, that which is "not seperate", further necessitates connection that is grounded in looping...thus all quality as both a static form and dynamic process is grounded in "the circle".

4. This can be observed within the cyclical rhythm in any good poetry or the manifestation of any "quality" art work where the artist is effectively intertwined with his or her creation. The same occurs with anyone being observed as a "natural" in some sport or athletic accomplishment or the intuitive beauty of self sacrifice in a selfless act or death. The subject and object are looped in such a manner where there is no distinction. This looping results in the inherent "form", the movements which compose reality (such as the action of an athlete, the words of a writer, the creation or a worker, or the guardianship of a warrior). "Emptiness" is thus contained through action with this action being the dynamic change which results in both form and is form.

Reality as assumed, is negated into form that encapsulates emptiness by form. Cause is thus form and assumption is less of a cause but effectively "formlessness" observed by a multiplicity of causes.


5. The nature of "cause" can be observed in language where language as a symbolic medium to further symbols references itself (in the case of this statement) and further phenomena outside itself. Language as "cause" through symbolism is once again...looping.

Linguistically we can observe this in prograganda "spinning" where a set of words are inverted or spun to "cause" a new set of perceptions in the populace...a new manner or interpreting or rather "measuring" reality, that forms it. This "spinning" connects one manner or interpretation to an entirely new, or rather different, one. But this requires a form of looping.

The act or spelling, or looping through connection various symbols, reflects this nature of causality as well where new words/sentences are created causing a new perception of reality.

"That which assumes" is still an assumed definition.

Who says it's a definition? That's just how I use words.

It is a connection of assumptions that constitutes an underlying "form" which imprints the emptiness of both reality and the observer where emptiness is the quantum medium that connects both the observer and reality as "one".

Actually the symbol grounding problem is not well understood, if it was well understood it would not be a problem. The symbol is assumed as a variation of that which assumes observing the "I" existing through "many" "I" within the course of any dialogue as each symbol is a degree of the same "I", it is recipricol in nature...an object as the extension of a subject (and vice versa), the subjectification of subjectivity as objective, and the objectification of the objective as requiring subjectivity... thus it is inherently grounded in a basic fallacy of circularity according to standard logic.

Do you understand what a "problem" is? Or is that also just an "assumption".
Problems are disconnected assumptions, thus the nature of analysis (by form alone) creates problems and solutions to these problems under further problems. Do you know what a problem is?

Of course, you have hit rock bottom now. This is Philosophy for you. You can carry on writing pointless posts. Or write a book.

You are assuming rock bottom is a bad thing, but there is little evidence this is strictly the case in light of religious or philosophical literature (zen buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity) as well as empirical history or even subjective experience...as a matter of fact rock bottom is strictly what it is...rock bottom, an empty state of awareness where reality is assumed as is.

In seperate respects there is no rock bottom, that is a statement of relation. Any "bottom" is just the statement of some comparison to another apex or height...but there are so many "heights" of different sorts and varieties that rock bottom is inherently ever present in all endeavors and is fundamentally natural...are bodies are composed of minerals (rocks) after all which is a metaphor in and of itself.

At the very least you understand why a degree in philosophy is worth fuckall in 2019.

A degree period "is worth fickell in 2019"...the university system is a bubble economy protecting corporate interests which the corporations maintaining power by providing addictions to various distractions through a dopamine loop.

That "programming" you do that provides a better means to "get a better cup or coffee", a new "movie to entertain people", etc... is merely a way of dealing with dopamine problems in the general populace by giving them more and more

In these respects programming is about as valuable as a drug dealer is valuable to his clients.

And yes, you will say this conversation is occurring through a computer, but clients kill dealers all the time...it is the ghost in the machine, a self destructive death force archetype programmed in the foundation of all "dopamine hit value systems." And like all dopamine hit systems it provides a false sense of security and acts as an artificial womb, or rather a fortress which acts beyond a natural rhythm or duration.

Technology is just a womb, but looking within any ancient mythos of a feminine dominance over a masculine life force. (specifically the Egyptian myth of "set" in this case) we see an "apocalyptic" or "revealing" event where the God breaks forth from the oppressive limits of materiality and wreaks havoc on the same force which oppressed it.

You fail to understand you are just incubating a generation of nihilistic destroyers...but please continue your work, it is very important the new generation can transfer dick pics to strangers on the other side of the world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Mere waving of opinions with no justified arguments.

My justified argument is within this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Supported by this;

Re the impossibility of perfection in reality;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27513

Like this?

Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

It only shows that you don't know what a justified argument is.

Nah your points above do not address my premises at all.
Where is your justified argument to counter my arguments are not justified?

Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.

And here you claim to be omniscient. You are not.
And even children can understand that nothing can be proven to be 100% impossible.

I did not claim to be omniscient, where??

You rely on children or even common sense as a credible basis for your justifications? This is very intellectually shameful.
In the olden days, children and common sense views are regarded as the 'vulgar' views, i.e. they don't have any credibility for an philosophical argument.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vulgar see point 5.

If you didn't lack basic rationationale you would know that to combat the idea of 'God', you would need to use proper arguments. Not everyone can be deceived easily.

Well anyway, you can't follow anything I say, like you were from another planet or I don't know.

I have already presented proper argument in proper syllogism with justified premises.
Show me where I am wrong in my syllogism and the stated premises.

[Skepdick]

I have already presented proper argument in proper syllogism with justified premises.
Show me where I am wrong in my syllogism and the stated premises.

That which you call 'justification' is but more of your own opinions.

The same error all foundationalists make.

[Atla]

Mere waving of opinions with no justified arguments.

My justified argument is within this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Supported by this;

Re the impossibility of perfection in reality;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27513

Like this?

Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

It only shows that you don't know what a justified argument is.

Nah your points above do not address my premises at all.
Where is your justified argument to counter my arguments are not justified?

Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.

And here you claim to be omniscient. You are not.
And even children can understand that nothing can be proven to be 100% impossible.

I did not claim to be omniscient, where??

You rely on children or even common sense as a credible basis for your justifications? This is very intellectually shameful.
In the olden days, children and common sense views are regarded as the 'vulgar' views, i.e. they don't have any credibility for an philosophical argument.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vulgar see point 5.

If you didn't lack basic rationationale you would know that to combat the idea of 'God', you would need to use proper arguments. Not everyone can be deceived easily.

Well anyway, you can't follow anything I say, like you were from another planet or I don't know.

I have already presented proper argument in proper syllogism with justified premises.
Show me where I am wrong in my syllogism and the stated premises.

Look, you lack the rationale to grasp (after years of hard work) what many children understand effortlessy. I'm just trying to figure out why.
Were you some kind of religious fanatic for decades? Maybe that can affect someone's thinking long-term so much?

[seeds]

My, my, my, isn’t it interesting that it is okay for you to reference Wikipedia to support your point, but when I do it, you respond with this:

When the hell is Wikipedia a final authority? Where is your intellectual integrity on this. Do you even know how Wikipedia works?

I did not refer to Wiki as final authority merely a lead or guide but never as a final authority. If you insist then we will go into Plato's work directly or at least to those with greater authority on Plato agreed by both of us.

What do you mean “if you insist”? You’re the one that had the spittle-spraying hissy-fit over the use of Wiki.

That you use large font in bold is indication you are using wiki as some sort of high authority or final authority.

As you have apparently done in your readings of Kant, the preceding is just another example of you making the wrong inference of another person’s intent.

At the time when I first used the large font, here - (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27433&start=255#p425965), we were arguing about which of us was correctly interpreting the following quote from Kant:

...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 case, I was not using the bigger font to indicate that I believed that Wikipedia is the “final authority” on the issue.

No, I was simply making sure that you could clearly see (i.e., not gloss-over or ignore) that at least one other (mildly reputable/international) source supported my interpretation and disagreed with your interpretation...

...(at least with respect to that one specific quote in question).

Now just to be fair and to give you the benefit of the doubt...

...if it is remotely true that in the greater body of the CPR, Kant somehow manages to imply that it is impossible for the “thing-in-itself” to be real, then that is a complete contradiction of the quote that you, me, and Wiki were arguing over, and would be a clear indication of Kant’s alleged inconsistency.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

The only thing that is more foolish than your obsessive clinging to (or acceptance of) such an extremely narrow interpretation of the meaning of the word “real”,...

...is me, as I continue to argue with someone who operates with the type of reasoning power and logic that one would expect to encounter when dealing with, for example, a “flat-earther.”

I have defined what is meant by the meaning 'real.'
You tell me what more real than what I have defined as real.

As I have (speculatively) suggested in an alternate thread: anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is “real” in some context or another (be it objective, subjective, phenomenal, noumenal, transcendent or any other imaginable [or unimaginable] state of being).

In other words, if it is not relegated to the domain of pure and utter nothingness, it can therefore be considered as being comprised of some kind of “real” - (as in existing) - essence or substance.

You need to stop assuming that the word “real” only applies to something that can be accessed by our senses within the objective context of our material universe, or, as you have described it elsewhere: “within the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.”

And just as a reminder, I provided the thread with two clear examples of “noumena” (especially the quantum one) whose “bare essence” can be reasoned as being real and existing, yet is completely beyond our reach – both sensorially and epistemically.

The examples are here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27433&start=135#p425223

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

It’s good that you have a hobby (Kantian philosophy); however, your obvious emotional investment in your interpretation of Kant’s ideas has not only caused you to worship Kant as some kind of infallible personal guru,...

...but has also caused you to hermetically seal yourself within a “belief bubble” that is completely impenetrable to any logical criticisms or alternative possibilities.

I am a veteran to philosophy forums. When I first started I was bashed left, right and center by those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument. I have learned my mistake and had taken steps to cover them to ensure there are no holes in my argument.

Yeah, well, unfortunately (for you), I’ve seen Swiss cheese with fewer holes than your - “God is an impossibility to be real” - argument.

Furthermore, might I suggest that you are still getting bashed left, right and center?
The only difference now is that (as a defense mechanism) you have simply learned how to roll with the punches a little better.

I am not perfect so there is still room for improvements.

Finally, an honest assertion that rings true.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

As I had stated the only 'currency' in this forum is justified arguments with evidences.
So far I have done that.
If you think I am wrong, then provided justified counters.

It is of no use to provide any justified counters to your arguments because you either refuse to accept their validity and simply ignore them - or - you respond with brazenly ironic gems such as this:

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Just out of curiosity, Veritas, what exactly would you consider to be a “justified counter” to your assertion that “God is an impossibility to be real”?

Can you please give us a clear example of what you would deem to be an acceptable argument (or evidence) that might change your opinion on that particular issue?

And lastly (and ironically), it is you who seems to be affected by an “existential crisis.”

I agree, I as with all humans are DNA-wise infected with an inherent and unavoidable 'existential crisis.'

DNA is the informationally-based mechanism that guides and maintains the production of the proteins that form the physical structure of our bodies, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “infecting” the human psyche or consciousness with an “existential crisis.”

Do you actually believe that there exists a genetic sequence somewhere within the double-helix strands of DNA that codes for an “existential crisis” in humans? Really, Veritas?

I disagree with tying me with the label [a]theism.
I am not-a-theist.

Veritas, you can rest assured that statements such as that will guarantee you a steady supply of those left, right, and center bashings you are familiar with.

I mean, how silly it was of me to think that someone who incessantly proclaims that “God is an impossibility to be real” would be an atheist.

Sheesh!!!
_______

[Atla]

Some of the numerous critiques coming from Schopenhauer (everything he says seems to make total sense to me, especially the bolded part is important here):

Fundamental error: Kant did not distinguish between the concrete, intuitive, perceptual knowledge of objects and the abstract, discursive, conceptual, knowledge of thoughts.

Kant's incorrect triple distinction:
Representation (given to one or more of the 5 senses, and to the sensibilities of space and time)
Object that is represented (thought through the 12 categories)
Thing-in-itself (cannot be known).

Kant's represented object is false. The true distinction is only between the representation and the thing-in-itself.

Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly.

"But it was just this distinction between abstract knowledge and knowledge of perception, entirely overlooked by Kant, which the ancient philosophers denoted by noumena and phenomena."

The noumenon's original meaning of "that which is thought" is not compatible with the "thing-in-itself", the latter meaning things as they exist [sorry VA] apart from their existence as images in the mind of an observer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My, my, my, isn’t it interesting that it is okay for you to reference Wikipedia to support your point, but when I do it, you respond with this:

When the hell is Wikipedia a final authority? Where is your intellectual integrity on this. Do you even know how Wikipedia works?

I did not refer to Wiki as final authority merely a lead or guide but never as a final authority. If you insist then we will go into Plato's work directly or at least to those with greater authority on Plato agreed by both of us.

What do you mean “if you insist”? You’re the one that had the spittle-spraying hissy-fit over the use of Wiki.

That you use large font in bold is indication you are using wiki as some sort of high authority or final authority.

As you have apparently done in your readings of Kant, the preceding is just another example of you making the wrong inference of another person’s intent.

At the time when I first used the large font, here - (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27433&start=255#p425965), we were arguing about which of us was correctly interpreting the following quote from Kant:

...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 case, I was not using the bigger font to indicate that I believed that Wikipedia is the “final authority” on the issue.

No, I was simply making sure that you could clearly see (i.e., not gloss-over or ignore) that at least one other (mildly reputable/international) source supported my interpretation and disagreed with your interpretation...

...(at least with respect to that one specific quote in question).

Now just to be fair and to give you the benefit of the doubt...

...if it is remotely true that in the greater body of the CPR, Kant somehow manages to imply that it is impossible for the “thing-in-itself” to be real, then that is a complete contradiction of the quote that you, me, and Wiki were arguing over, and would be a clear indication of Kant’s alleged inconsistency.

(Continued in next post)
_______

Note the use of Wiki is merely a matter of convenience.
If both parties agree whatever is brought up in Wiki we can continue to rely on it.
If one party, you or me do not agree, then we have to resort to other credible sources where we can find consensus, if none then we have to refer to the original Critique of Pure Reason, i.e. the fundamental of the contention.

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

The only thing that is more foolish than your obsessive clinging to (or acceptance of) such an extremely narrow interpretation of the meaning of the word “real”,...

...is me, as I continue to argue with someone who operates with the type of reasoning power and logic that one would expect to encounter when dealing with, for example, a “flat-earther.”

I have defined what is meant by the meaning 'real.'
You tell me what more real than what I have defined as real.

As I have (speculatively) suggested in an alternate thread: anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is “real” in some context or another (be it objective, subjective, phenomenal, noumenal, transcendent or any other imaginable [or unimaginable] state of being).

In other words, if it is not relegated to the domain of pure and utter nothingness, it can therefore be considered as being comprised of some kind of “real” - (as in existing) - essence or substance.

You need to stop assuming that the word “real” only applies to something that can be accessed by our senses within the objective context of our material universe, or, as you have described it elsewhere: “within the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.”

And just as a reminder, I provided the thread with two clear examples of “noumena” (especially the quantum one) whose “bare essence” can be reasoned as being real and existing, yet is completely beyond our reach – both sensorially and epistemically.

The examples are here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27433&start=135#p425223

(Continued in next post)
_______

Kant defined reality [which I agree] as

• ' [reality is] that which corresponds to a Sensation-in-general' or that 'the Concept of which points to being (in time)' (CPR A143/B182).

The above have to be understood within the whole of the CPR.

Whatever is of 'quantum' is nature is withing the definition of 'physical' which is within the framework of Science. Science can only deal with what is sensible, i.e. sensation-based evidences.

Therefore if your 'noumena' is related to the quantum, physical and Science, it cannot be the noumena within Kant's perspective which is the topic we are contending.

I have mentioned many times Kant's definition and attributes of 'noumena', i.e.

• 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

Despite the term 'negative employment' you are still trying to feel the 'noumenal' is something positively real.
What is positively of the noumenal is, it is positively an absolute nothingness.
To understand the above fully, one will have to read it within the context of the whole of the CPR.

Whilst the noumena is related to sensation [basis of reality re B182 above], it is merely a limiting concept and cannot be interpreted as something real in the positive sense. An empirical table that can be justified is real, but a 'noumenal-table' is not real, it is only a limiting concept.

A noumenal aka thing-in-itself resides ultimately in absolute nothingness, i.e. it is a transcendental illusion.

Here again;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
  B397

'No concept' means nothing empirical, sensation, sensibility within its foundation.
The above implies we cannot attribute objective reality of the noumena aka thing-in-itself.

Kant initially introduced the noumenal [actually the thing-in-itself] to limit sensibility but later argued how that noumenal as a thing-in-itself is an illusion.
The noumenal to thing-in-itself is just like ice to steam, they are fundamentally the same i.e. both are H2O. The noumenal and thing-in-itself are both the same fundamentally absolute nothingness.

As I had stated Kant's CPR is one long argument with loads of nuances.
If you don't read the CPR and understand [not necessary agree] it fully, you are likely to miss many nuances of 'Mt. Everest' difficulty to surmount.

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

It’s good that you have a hobby (Kantian philosophy); however, your obvious emotional investment in your interpretation of Kant’s ideas has not only caused you to worship Kant as some kind of infallible personal guru,...

...but has also caused you to hermetically seal yourself within a “belief bubble” that is completely impenetrable to any logical criticisms or alternative possibilities.

I am a veteran to philosophy forums. When I first started I was bashed left, right and center by those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument. I have learned my mistake and had taken steps to cover them to ensure there are no holes in my argument.

Yeah, well, unfortunately (for you), I’ve seen Swiss cheese with fewer holes than your - “God is an impossibility to be real” - argument.

Furthermore, might I suggest that you are still getting bashed left, right and center?
The only difference now is that (as a defense mechanism) you have simply learned how to roll with the punches a little better.

I am not perfect so there is still room for improvements.

Finally, an honest assertion that rings true.

(Continued in next post)
_______

You have not provided any convincingly counter to my argument.
You raised the point re perfection.
I have countered that point within the thread and I had raised a new thread to support my point re perfection is impossibility within reality.

As I had stated, it is useless making all sort of remarks.
The currency and what counts in this forum is soundly justified counters to my argument.
You and others has not provided any.

Note the potential of my argument, 'God is an impossibility to be real' as a benefit to humanity in the future;

• 1. it will exposed the inherent existential crisis
  2. it will wean off theism for good.
  3. from 2, there will be ZERO theistic driven evil and violent acts.

On the other hand, God exist as real to answer prayers and granting eternal life to believers is the basis for believers [SOME] to continue to commit terrible evil and violent acts in the name of God as a commanded obligated duty.

[Atla]

Therefore if your 'noumena' is related to the quantum, physical and Science, it cannot be the noumena within Kant's perspective which is the topic we are contending.

No, the topic is noumena as related to the quantum, physical and Science. Did Kant understand the correct categorization of representation vs 'physical' thing-in-itself?
You're the one who has been strawmanning the topic for a dozen pages with this Platonic noumenon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

As I had stated the only 'currency' in this forum is justified arguments with evidences.
So far I have done that.
If you think I am wrong, then provided justified counters.

It is of no use to provide any justified counters to your arguments because you either refuse to accept their validity and simply ignore them - or - you respond with brazenly ironic gems such as this:

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Just out of curiosity, Veritas, what exactly would you consider to be a “justified counter” to your assertion that “God is an impossibility to be real”?

Can you please give us a clear example of what you would deem to be an acceptable argument (or evidence) that might change your opinion on that particular issue?

What is real should be able to be verified empirically and philosophical in the present or possibly in the future.

If you declare the observed or felt table that is 5 feet in front of you exists as real, that can easily be verified empirically and philosophically in the present.
If you insist there is a real table somewhere in a planet 1000 light years away, I will agree with you it is possible, albeit a 0.0000000..001% possibility. Because all the variable in that proposition are empirical possibility and because empirical elements are justifiable for reality, I cannot reject your claim as impossible.

If you define your god is a dog which can create the universe we live in, I will not reject it as impossible because the variable dog and others are empirical.

But the default God as claimed by theists in whatever the forms is reducible to the ontological God, i.e. a God is an entity than which no greater can be conceived. This is the absolute or perfect God which is impossible to exists as real because it lacks empirical concepts and premises but yet claim to have objective reality. Note B397 again,

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
  B397

The something which we know are the real empirical things but they are speculated to be created by or encompass by a perfect creator [of no empirical concept] which is claimed to be real but is fundamentally a transcendental illusion.

And lastly (and ironically), it is you who seems to be affected by an “existential crisis.”

I agree, I as with all humans are DNA-wise infected with an inherent and unavoidable 'existential crisis.'

DNA is the informationally-based mechanism that guides and maintains the production of the proteins that form the physical structure of our bodies, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “infecting” the human psyche or consciousness with an “existential crisis.”

Do you actually believe that there exists a genetic sequence somewhere within the double-helix strands of DNA that codes for an “existential crisis” in humans? Really, Veritas?
You cannot be that ignorant of what the DNA does to human beings.

It is the DNA code that manifest the sexual drives and instinct in all humans [with exceptions when damage occur]. When this sexual drives is perverted to rapes and other sexual crimes I would use the term 'infected.'

The existential crisis is related to the existential drives and instinct programmed within the DNA.
The various existential drives, instincts and elements combine to generate an inherent existential crisis which is very forceful subliminally but not so much consciously.

I disagree with tying me with the label [a]theism.
I am not-a-theist.

Veritas, you can rest assured that statements such as that will guarantee you a steady supply of those left, right, and center bashings you are familiar with.

I mean, how silly it was of me to think that someone who incessantly proclaims that “God is an impossibility to be real” would be an atheist.

Sheesh!!!
_______

I have to admit the earlier bashings I faced [long ago] was due to my naivety and ignorance. I have learned and overcame those limitations -A.

One very obvious precedents is the pioneers and front runners in knowledge are always bashed left, right and center, not Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes. I believe what I am encountering at present is the latter rather than the former -A.

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left, then they will resort to all sort of condemnations instead of exploring more counters or to further their knowledge of their own human nature.

Note my argument is a short one;

• 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.

All you need is to be prove P1 or P2 is false.

If you are not comfortable with P1 as above, then;

• P1. Perfection [absolute] is an impossibility to be real

I have to qualify "absolute" because 'perfection' is quite a loose term which is often used casually to mean the best and the likes;
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect
I would also absolute is absolutely-absolute i.e. in the philosophical sense, not any casual absolute like absolute temperature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Therefore if your 'noumena' is related to the quantum, physical and Science, it cannot be the noumena within Kant's perspective which is the topic we are contending.

No, the topic is noumena as related to the quantum, physical and Science. Did Kant understand the correct categorization of representation vs 'physical' thing-in-itself?
You're the one who has been strawmanning the topic for a dozen pages with this Platonic noumenon.

Have you exhausted what is in the CPR to determine where you stand on the above?
The noumenon as a limiting concept is the same as the assumption Science made to assume thing-in-itself exists as real.
Those scientists who are realistic would understand such an assumption cannot be real [beyond Science] and impossible to be real. This is why the noumenal aka thing-in-itself will always remain an assumption.