Kant

[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.

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.

Now please take a deep breath and rewrite this comment using the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Now please take a deep breath and rewrite this comment using the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'.

The onus is for you to define what is real and to justify the assumption within Science of the thing-in-itself, is real.

I have already defined what is 'real' above in reply to Seeds.

It is so easy within Science to verify whether God is real.
Just bring the scientific-based-evidence to justify God is scientifically real.
Note by default a belief in God is based on faith which is totally outside the ambit of Science.

[Atla]

The onus is for you to define what is real and to justify the assumption within Science of the thing-in-itself, is real.

I have already defined what is 'real' above in reply to Seeds.

It is so easy within Science to verify whether God is real.
Just bring the scientific-based-evidence to justify God is scientifically real.
Note by default a belief in God is based on faith which is totally outside the ambit of Science.

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'. You are on a philosophy forum.

I'm also not sure whether you understand what 'impossible' means.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The onus is for you to define what is real and to justify the assumption within Science of the thing-in-itself, is real.

I have already defined what is 'real' above in reply to Seeds.

It is so easy within Science to verify whether God is real.
Just bring the scientific-based-evidence to justify God is scientifically real.
Note by default a belief in God is based on faith which is totally outside the ambit of Science.

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'. You are on a philosophy forum.

I'm also not sure whether you understand what 'impossible' means.

What is so problematic with the definition of what is real?

Possible in this case mean to possible to be realized as real.
E.g. it is impossible for an empirical illusion to be an empirically real thing.
The bent-stick-between-water as perceived is an impossibility to be the real straight stick.
It is impossible for a square-circle to exists in empirical reality.

What is real?
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

There is one aspect of consideration of reality, i.e. the ontological reality, i.e. "The Real" with capital 'R".

But the ontological absolute "The Real" is impossible to be real within any framework of reality except in thoughts only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

• In philosophy, the Real is that which is the authentic, unchangeable truth. It may be considered a primordial, external dimension of experience, referred to as the infinite, absolute or noumenal, as opposed to a reality contingent on sense perception and the material order.
  -wiki

[Atla]

The onus is for you to define what is real and to justify the assumption within Science of the thing-in-itself, is real.

I have already defined what is 'real' above in reply to Seeds.

It is so easy within Science to verify whether God is real.
Just bring the scientific-based-evidence to justify God is scientifically real.
Note by default a belief in God is based on faith which is totally outside the ambit of Science.

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'. You are on a philosophy forum.

I'm also not sure whether you understand what 'impossible' means.

What is so problematic with the definition of what is real?

Possible in this case mean to possible to be realized as real.
E.g. it is impossible for an empirical illusion to be an empirically real thing.
The bent-stick-between-water as perceived is an impossibility to be the real straight stick.
It is impossible for a square-circle to exists in empirical reality.

What is real?
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

There is one aspect of consideration of reality, i.e. the ontological reality, i.e. "The Real" with capital 'R".

But the ontological absolute "The Real" is impossible to be real within any framework of reality except in thoughts only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

• In philosophy, the Real is that which is the authentic, unchangeable truth. It may be considered a primordial, external dimension of experience, referred to as the infinite, absolute or noumenal, as opposed to a reality contingent on sense perception and the material order.
  -wiki

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'.

Binding realness to frameworks is faulty reasoning (frameworks are human-made concepts), and the wiki quote you just brought doesn't imply impossibility either.

[Eodnhoj7]

The onus is for you to define what is real and to justify the assumption within Science of the thing-in-itself, is real.

I have already defined what is 'real' above in reply to Seeds.

It is so easy within Science to verify whether God is real.
Just bring the scientific-based-evidence to justify God is scientifically real.
Note by default a belief in God is based on faith which is totally outside the ambit of Science.

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'. You are on a philosophy forum.

I'm also not sure whether you understand what 'impossible' means.

What is so problematic with the definition of what is real?

Possible in this case mean to possible to be realized as real.
E.g. it is impossible for an empirical illusion to be an empirically real thing.
The bent-stick-between-water as perceived is an impossibility to be the real straight stick.
It is impossible for a square-circle to exists in empirical reality.

What is real?
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

There is one aspect of consideration of reality, i.e. the ontological reality, i.e. "The Real" with capital 'R".

But the ontological absolute "The Real" is impossible to be real within any framework of reality except in thoughts only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

• In philosophy, the Real is that which is the authentic, unchangeable truth. It may be considered a primordial, external dimension of experience, referred to as the infinite, absolute or noumenal, as opposed to a reality contingent on sense perception and the material order.
  -wiki

Fallacy, quoting wiki is a bandwagon maneuver.

Second if real is unchangeable, then you cannot ground it in empiricism.

Third, thought is undefined and cannot be explain empirically without reducing it to electrical impulses that are unpredictable in there totality.

Fourth, sense perception, thoughts, and reason change over time...thus under your terms they cannot be real.



Kant applied labels and is believed because of the "gravity fallacy" presented in logic/math section.

Kant is "great" in philosophy, but philosophy is dead and dying...what does that say about Kant?

[Eodnhoj7]

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'. You are on a philosophy forum.

I'm also not sure whether you understand what 'impossible' means.

What is so problematic with the definition of what is real?

Possible in this case mean to possible to be realized as real.
E.g. it is impossible for an empirical illusion to be an empirically real thing.
The bent-stick-between-water as perceived is an impossibility to be the real straight stick.
It is impossible for a square-circle to exists in empirical reality.

What is real?
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

There is one aspect of consideration of reality, i.e. the ontological reality, i.e. "The Real" with capital 'R".

But the ontological absolute "The Real" is impossible to be real within any framework of reality except in thoughts only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

• In philosophy, the Real is that which is the authentic, unchangeable truth. It may be considered a primordial, external dimension of experience, referred to as the infinite, absolute or noumenal, as opposed to a reality contingent on sense perception and the material order.
  -wiki

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'.

Binding realness to frameworks is faulty reasoning (frameworks are human-made concepts), and the wiki quote you just brought doesn't imply impossibility either.

Not necessarily considering if the circle is made by human reasoning, but human reasoning is stuck in progressive loops trying to explain it than certain truths exist beyond individual awareness.

[surreptitious57]

It is so easy within Science to verify whether God is real
Just bring the scientific based evidence to justify God is scientifically real

There are two things science cannot do - determine truth or reality - so it cannot say if God is real

Science only investigates observable phenomena and its properties and capabilities
It has nothing to say about truth or reality for they pertain to ontology not science

Furthermore God is defined as metaphysical which is entirely beyond the remit of science
There is no scientific evidence for him because if there was he would not be metaphysical

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is so easy within Science to verify whether God is real
Just bring the scientific based evidence to justify God is scientifically real

Note I qualified it is scientific reality.
What other basis of reality can you claim to be more objective than scientific reality?

There are two things science cannot do - determine truth or reality - so it cannot say if God is real

Science only investigates observable phenomena and its properties and capabilities
It has nothing to say about truth or reality for they pertain to ontology not science

Furthermore God is defined as metaphysical which is entirely beyond the remit of science
There is no scientific evidence for him because if there was he would not be metaphysical.

You cannot claim there are [bolded] truth and reality beyond science until you have proven such truths and reality are even feasible.

This is why Kant raised the questions;

1. Is Science a possibility?
2. Is Mathematics a possibility?
3. Is Metaphysics a possibility?

The answer to 1 & 2 is yes.

But the answer to 3 is;
the ontological [metaphysics] claim of a being as real beyond Science is an impossibility.
Thus the impossibility of God as real.

The above arguments are provided within Kant's Prolegomena and CPR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolegome ... etaphysics

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'. You are on a philosophy forum.

I'm also not sure whether you understand what 'impossible' means.

What is so problematic with the definition of what is real?

Possible in this case mean to possible to be realized as real.
E.g. it is impossible for an empirical illusion to be an empirically real thing.
The bent-stick-between-water as perceived is an impossibility to be the real straight stick.
It is impossible for a square-circle to exists in empirical reality.

What is real?
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

There is one aspect of consideration of reality, i.e. the ontological reality, i.e. "The Real" with capital 'R".

But the ontological absolute "The Real" is impossible to be real within any framework of reality except in thoughts only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

• In philosophy, the Real is that which is the authentic, unchangeable truth. It may be considered a primordial, external dimension of experience, referred to as the infinite, absolute or noumenal, as opposed to a reality contingent on sense perception and the material order.
  -wiki

Fallacy, quoting wiki is a bandwagon maneuver.

Second if real is unchangeable, then you cannot ground it in empiricism.

Third, thought is undefined and cannot be explain empirically without reducing it to electrical impulses that are unpredictable in there totality.

Fourth, sense perception, thoughts, and reason change over time...thus under your terms they cannot be real.

Kant applied labels and is believed because of the "gravity fallacy" presented in logic/math section.

Kant is "great" in philosophy, but philosophy is dead and dying...what does that say about Kant?

Wiki is merely a convenience.
If you agree with what I quote or I agree with what you quoted, then we can rely on Wiki.
If one of us disagree, then we have to reject wiki and turn to others.

What did I claim the real is unchangeable?

Regardless of whatever Kant or anyone's views, what counts is whether the arguments presented are sound or not?
The arguments I have referenced to Kant are sound.
Do you have any sound counter arguments to them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'. You are on a philosophy forum.

I'm also not sure whether you understand what 'impossible' means.

What is so problematic with the definition of what is real?

Possible in this case mean to possible to be realized as real.
E.g. it is impossible for an empirical illusion to be an empirically real thing.
The bent-stick-between-water as perceived is an impossibility to be the real straight stick.
It is impossible for a square-circle to exists in empirical reality.

What is real?
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

There is one aspect of consideration of reality, i.e. the ontological reality, i.e. "The Real" with capital 'R".

But the ontological absolute "The Real" is impossible to be real within any framework of reality except in thoughts only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

• In philosophy, the Real is that which is the authentic, unchangeable truth. It may be considered a primordial, external dimension of experience, referred to as the infinite, absolute or noumenal, as opposed to a reality contingent on sense perception and the material order.
  -wiki

Again: use the standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'.

Binding realness to frameworks is faulty reasoning (frameworks are human-made concepts), and the wiki quote you just brought doesn't imply impossibility either.

What is your standard, up-to-date meaning of 'real'?

[Eodnhoj7]

What is so problematic with the definition of what is real?

Possible in this case mean to possible to be realized as real.
E.g. it is impossible for an empirical illusion to be an empirically real thing.
The bent-stick-between-water as perceived is an impossibility to be the real straight stick.
It is impossible for a square-circle to exists in empirical reality.

What is real?
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

There is one aspect of consideration of reality, i.e. the ontological reality, i.e. "The Real" with capital 'R".

But the ontological absolute "The Real" is impossible to be real within any framework of reality except in thoughts only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

• In philosophy, the Real is that which is the authentic, unchangeable truth. It may be considered a primordial, external dimension of experience, referred to as the infinite, absolute or noumenal, as opposed to a reality contingent on sense perception and the material order.
  -wiki

Fallacy, quoting wiki is a bandwagon maneuver.

Second if real is unchangeable, then you cannot ground it in empiricism.

Third, thought is undefined and cannot be explain empirically without reducing it to electrical impulses that are unpredictable in there totality.

Fourth, sense perception, thoughts, and reason change over time...thus under your terms they cannot be real.

Kant applied labels and is believed because of the "gravity fallacy" presented in logic/math section.

Kant is "great" in philosophy, but philosophy is dead and dying...what does that say about Kant?

Wiki is merely a convenience.
If you agree with what I quote or I agree with what you quoted, then we can rely on Wiki.
If one of us disagree, then we have to reject wiki and turn to others.

What did I claim the real is unchangeable?

The wiki quote relative to real as unchangeable and thought only as unchangeable.

Regardless of whatever Kant or anyone's views, what counts is whether the arguments presented are sound or not?
They are not sound and soundness is relative to context. Sound according to what context?


The arguments I have referenced to Kant are sound.
False, posterio knowledge is an apriori concept, but this a priori concept is justified by posterio knowledge....fallacy of circularity.




Do you have any sound counter arguments to them?



Assumptive logic thread in math section as well as "counting as inherent void" where "counting" can be replaced with qualitative measurement...actually much of the math section as this applies to logic as well.

The counting fallacy thread as well, as it addresses the nature of "spelling" and "argument formation and function"

Do you have any sound argument for what "soundness" is without making an empty assumption?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fallacy, quoting wiki is a bandwagon maneuver.

Second if real is unchangeable, then you cannot ground it in empiricism.

Third, thought is undefined and cannot be explain empirically without reducing it to electrical impulses that are unpredictable in there totality.

Fourth, sense perception, thoughts, and reason change over time...thus under your terms they cannot be real.

Kant applied labels and is believed because of the "gravity fallacy" presented in logic/math section.

Kant is "great" in philosophy, but philosophy is dead and dying...what does that say about Kant?

Wiki is merely a convenience.
If you agree with what I quote or I agree with what you quoted, then we can rely on Wiki.
If one of us disagree, then we have to reject wiki and turn to others.

What did I claim the real is unchangeable?

The wiki quote relative to real as unchangeable and thought only as unchangeable.

The wiki quote provided various perspectives.
I did not emphasize on the unchangeable, i.e. the claim that ontological substance as real.

Regardless of whatever Kant or anyone's views, what counts is whether the arguments presented are sound or not?
They are not sound and soundness is relative to context. Sound according to what context?

It should be sound based on critical thinking and the various justification methods used.
In a soundness test, we put whatever the claim through various phases, i.e.

• 1. common sense
  2. scientific test
  3. Empirical possibility test.
  4. Rational test - using various philosophical test
  5. The psychological test

Re the claim 'God exists' it failed all the above except it is possible via the psychological basis.

The arguments I have referenced to Kant are sound.
False, posterio knowledge is an apriori concept, but this a priori concept is justified by posterio knowledge....fallacy of circularity.

Have you read Kant fully and understood [not necessary agree with] his philosophical theories?
If not you don't have any credibility to judge Kant is wrong without a proper argument.

Do you have any sound argument for what "soundness" is without making an empty assumption?

Note above re soundness.

[Skepdick]

In a soundness test, we put whatever the claim through various phases, i.e.

• 1. common sense
  2. scientific test
  3. Empirical possibility test.
  4. Rational test - using various philosophical test
  5. The psychological test

Re the claim 'God exists' it failed all the above except it is possible via the psychological basis.

You speak such nonsense. The Modus ponens in logic goes as follows: P → Q ,P ⊢ Q

God → Universe, Universe ⊢ God

This is

1. Common sense - the universe exists!
2. Scientifically testable (you exist, the universe exists - both testable)
3. Empirically testable (you exist, the universe exists - both testable)
4. Rational because it's logical.
5. Psychological because it's logical.

It's not falsifiable, but that's a limit of epistemology. It doesn't mean God is not real. it means you can't know if God is real.

[seeds]

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left,...

No, Veritas, you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness.

In other words, there’s a big difference between your assumption of what’s happening, and of that which is really happening.

...then they will resort to all sort of condemnations...

Yes, out of sheer exasperation of your inability to understand the flimsiness of your arguments.

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.

The only thing I can prove in this situation is how foolish I am for continuing to argue with someone who has (as mentioned earlier) a sense of logic equivalent to that of a flat-earther.

For some inexplicable reason, you just cannot seem to get it into your head that your P2...

...“God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect”...

...is complete and total nonsense.
_______