Kant

[seeds]

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

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.

It is clear that you just don’t understand the implications of the quantum-based example I provided.

What is taking place within the space between the double-slitted wall and that of the detection screen is a perfect example of the “dual aspect” interpretation of the thing-in-itself.

According to Wiki:

Kantian scholars have long debated two contrasting interpretations of the thing-in-itself. One is the dual object view, according to which the thing-in-itself is an entity distinct from the phenomena to which it gives rise. The other is the dual aspect view, according to which the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-it-appears are two "sides" of the same thing.

(Bolding mine)

Quite frankly, the dual aspect interpretation of the thing-in-itself is the only reason I was attracted to the Kantian world in the first place (though I didn’t know there was a name for it at the time).

In my opinion, that particular interpretation seems to perfectly describe the relationship that the informationally-based quantum realm (“non-local” reality) has to the phenomenal features of the universe (“local” reality),...

...of which I have often expressed as follows:

Clearly, I am taking license with the word “noumena” by applying it to Heisenberg’s “raw potentia,” or to the substance delineated by Schrödinger’s equation, or to that implicate level of reality implied in David Bohm’s theories, etc., etc..

However, I don’t think that Kant would have a problem visualizing how well it correlates with the hidden underpinnings of the universe where the “thing-in-itself” resides in the infinitesimal articulations of information written in the invisible script of quantum waveforms.

Again, it is clear that you just don’t understand the deeper implications of the example I provided...

...(and that’s assuming you even bothered to read what I wrote and apply a little critical thought to the issue).

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

A noumenal aka thing-in-itself resides ultimately in absolute nothingness,...

Due to the fact that you continue to demonstrate that you still don’t understand what Kant was saying in the quote we were arguing over, I’m going to copy and paste my earlier interpretation of it:

Let’s break it down:

...that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves,...

Meaning: that even though we cannot know the noumenal aspect of the objects – (as they really are) - independent of our sensory experience of them...

...we must yet be in position...

Meaning: we must be willing...

...at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves...

Meaning: to reason them (presume them) as possessing some form of independent existence unto themselves in their noumenal context...

...Otherwise, why in the world do you think he added this last line...

...otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

...???

Stop ignoring the implications of that last line.

And what all of that means is that your assertion...

A noumenal aka thing-in-itself resides ultimately in absolute nothingness,...

...completely contradicts what Kant is declaring in the quote.

For it is clear that in the last line of that particular quote, Kant made an unmistakable effort to point out the absurdity in thinking that nothingness is somehow capable of producing the appearance of objective phenomena.

Now regardless of your silly protestations to the contrary, it doesn’t matter one iota if the quote we are discussing is from the preface of the CPR, or from the main body of the CPR, it (the quote) is still Kant’s own words...

(or, at least, a reasonable approximation in English of what he stated in the original)

...of which you have clearly misinterpreted.

And that brings us right back to the inherent problem of the initial premise (the first line) of one of your key (anti-God) syllogisms:

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

Because if according to your interpretation of Kant, the thing-in-itself is impossible to be real...

(as in “resides in absolute nothingness”)

...then Kant would accuse you of invoking a conclusion that he considers to be absurd.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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.

Allow me to offer you a little piece of friendly advice that might help cut down on the bashings:

I suggest that Instead of overtly implying that you personally think that you should be ranked as an equal among the historical figures such as “Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes,” you should let other people declare your greatness.

Otherwise you’ll only sound like some kind of preening blowhard whose ego has gotten the best of him.

Now, of course, it is needless to say that you are going to ignore my advice and continue to hold up your remarkably unimpressive - 3 measly years of studying Kant - as some kind of reason why the rest of us (including Wiki) should bow to your unprecedented level of knowledge and authority.

(Do you have any idea of how tiny and ridiculous you sound as you constantly point that out?)

Now setting all of that aside, it is quite obvious (to me, anyway) that your fan-boy worshipping of Kant has you so narrowly focused on the details of the bark, and the limbs, and the leaves of the singular “tree” of Kantianism that you have completely lost sight of the forest.

I have often suggested that if there truly does exist a Creative Intelligence (a God) who is capable of willfully forming the subjectively-based (mental) fabric of its very own being into a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets (as per a Berkeleyan form of idealism/Panentheism),...

...then this living Entity is so far above us in scope and consciousness that we are nothing more than the metaphorical equivalent of amoebas in comparison.

In which case, the chances of “amoeba Kant” holding an accurate understanding and assessment of the highest levels (and truths) of reality, are about as likely as an actual amoeba in a petri dish, holding an accurate understanding and assessment of the human level of reality.

Veritas, just like most humans on earth, you are sleepwalking through life, and you are completely unaware (unconscious) of the possibility of there being a higher level of wakefulness above and outside of this dream-like illusion we call a universe.

And what that means is that the more heartfelt and passionate you are in articulating your faith in hardcore materialism, then the more you demonstrate – in direct proportion – the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

And don’t ask me to prove such a claim, because proof would require you waking up, and that is something that you must accomplish on your own.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.
_______

Actually that is not my personal views but that definition and attribute of God is what is believed by theists.

Are you serious with Philosophy [note you are in a philosophy forum].

Here is how theologians defined their ultimate God;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
  
  The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as
  "a being than which no greater can be conceived"
  
  French philosopher René Descartes employed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being.
  
  In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept.

Read more of the above before you ignorantly and foolishly condemned my P2 as total nonsense. Woh .. what arrogance in throwing sh1t at me with you standing in front of a fast turning fan.

The theists's earlier empirical based definitions of god were countered and trashed by the oppositions [atheists and other theists]. Thus their gradually incremental definitions toward more solid definitions ending with the ontological definition as the ultimate bastion. But they don't realize they have checkmated themselves.

The only probable explanation for all the fuss above is the invidual's psychological state which I have been expounding.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

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.

It is clear that you just don’t understand the implications of the quantum-based example I provided.

What is taking place within the space between the double-slitted wall and that of the detection screen is a perfect example of the “dual aspect” interpretation of the thing-in-itself.

According to Wiki:

Kantian scholars have long debated two contrasting interpretations of the thing-in-itself. One is the dual object view, according to which the thing-in-itself is an entity distinct from the phenomena to which it gives rise. The other is the dual aspect view, according to which the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-it-appears are two "sides" of the same thing.

(Bolding mine)

Quite frankly, the dual aspect interpretation of the thing-in-itself is the only reason I was attracted to the Kantian world in the first place (though I didn’t know there was a name for it at the time).

In my opinion, that particular interpretation seems to perfectly describe the relationship that the informationally-based quantum realm (“non-local” reality) has to the phenomenal features of the universe (“local” reality),...

...of which I have often expressed as follows:

Clearly, I am taking license with the word “noumena” by applying it to Heisenberg’s “raw potentia,” or to the substance delineated by Schrödinger’s equation, or to that implicate level of reality implied in David Bohm’s theories, etc., etc..

However, I don’t think that Kant would have a problem visualizing how well it correlates with the hidden underpinnings of the universe where the “thing-in-itself” resides in the infinitesimal articulations of information written in the invisible script of quantum waveforms.

Again, it is clear that you just don’t understand the deeper implications of the example I provided...

...(and that’s assuming you even bothered to read what I wrote and apply a little critical thought to the issue).

(Continued in next post)
_______

Note you mentioned 'the dual aspect of the thing-in-itself existing as real.'
In the above you are not referring to the thing-in-itself per se but rather some dualistic thing-in-itself. You are referring to a pseudo-thing-in-itself.

The thing-in-itself in Kant's sense in accordance to the CPR is merely a thought-thing not some real-thing that has dual aspects.

When you deflect to Science, i.e. quantum physics, you have gone off tangent. This is because Science assume [note only assume] there is a thing-in-itself that is real. What is assumed as real cannot be really real.

What is happening with you and the likes is, the common human mind as evolved is programmed not to let go of 'a-thing'. To the mind, there must always be 'a thing' and it cannot accept 'no thing' or 'nothing'. Even if the mind can think of 'nothingness' there is still some thing behind nothingness.
This is like the state of a drowning man who must instinctly grab at whatever thing to ensure survival. What is going in your mind is something similar but it is subliminal.

Thus when I restate what Kant meant of the thing-in-itself is an illusion, your [and the likes] mind naturally just cannot accept it. Point is we need to apply critical philosophy to understand what is beyond the natural in this case, i.e. the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion and there is no reality to it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

A noumenal aka thing-in-itself resides ultimately in absolute nothingness,...

Due to the fact that you continue to demonstrate that you still don’t understand what Kant was saying in the quote we were arguing over, I’m going to copy and paste my earlier interpretation of it:

Let’s break it down:

...that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves,...

Meaning: that even though we cannot know the noumenal aspect of the objects – (as they really are) - independent of our sensory experience of them...

...we must yet be in position...

Meaning: we must be willing...

...at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves...

Meaning: to reason them (presume them) as possessing some form of independent existence unto themselves in their noumenal context...

...Otherwise, why in the world do you think he added this last line...

...otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

...???

Stop ignoring the implications of that last line.

And what all of that means is that your assertion...

A noumenal aka thing-in-itself resides ultimately in absolute nothingness,...

...completely contradicts what Kant is declaring in the quote.

For it is clear that in the last line of that particular quote, Kant made an unmistakable effort to point out the absurdity in thinking that nothingness is somehow capable of producing the appearance of objective phenomena.

Now regardless of your silly protestations to the contrary, it doesn’t matter one iota if the quote we are discussing is from the preface of the CPR, or from the main body of the CPR, it (the quote) is still Kant’s own words...

(or, at least, a reasonable approximation in English of what he stated in the original)

...of which you have clearly misinterpreted.

And that brings us right back to the inherent problem of the initial premise (the first line) of one of your key (anti-God) syllogisms:

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

Because if according to your interpretation of Kant, the thing-in-itself is impossible to be real...

(as in “resides in absolute nothingness”)

...then Kant would accuse you of invoking a conclusion that he considers to be absurd.

(Continued in next post)
_______

The problem is you have not read Kant's CPR fully and understood [not necessary agree with] it plus cover the rest of his works.

The quote B-xxvii is merely a part of the Second Preface.
Surely you understand a preface is only a summary.
If you read the whole of the CPR you will see the the quote is not a standalone point but a temporary phase of the whole argument.

Note the subsequent para following the quote to get a clue;

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in 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. (B xxvii}
  
  Now let us suppose that the distinction, which our Critique has shown to be necessary, between Things as Objects of Experience and those same Things as Things-in-Themselves, had not been made.
  In that case all Things-in-General, as far as they are Efficient Causes, would be determined by the Principle of Causality, and consequently by the Mechanism of Nature.

It is obvious from the above, the things-in-themselves can only be thought thus not real objects. In this case the 'thing that appears' as noumenon can only be thought.

In the following para, Kant explained why the noumenon as "thing that appears" is necessary.

I have quoted this many times;

• 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

In B-xxvii above, the Mechanism of Nature is grounded on sensibility.
The point is, if the Things as Objects of Experience [sensibility] is not differentiated from ALL things-in-themselves with the concept of the noumenon then it will not limit the principles of causality in Metaphysics which is very contentious.
In that cases all things-in-themselves [unlimited] including especially the transcendental God, the soul and others can be conflated and determined via the mechanism nature, i.e. the empirical.
This is where theist commit the fallacy of equivocating the empirical with the transcendental.

In the later part of the CPR, Kant insisted it is impossible to prove God as thing-in-itself as real.
To Kant, God as thing-in-itself [differentiated from noumenon] can only be thought, is an illusion but nevertheless very useful for morality.

Thus the paragraph that follow that quote indicate the reason why ALL things-in-themselves need to be differentiated as

• noumenon [empirical related] and
  transcendental things-in-themselves.

You will not understand [not necessary agree with] this point until you have read the CPR as one long complete argument.

Note again the quote you brought up is only a part of the PREFACE thus not representing the full picture.

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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.

Allow me to offer you a little piece of friendly advice that might help cut down on the bashings:

I suggest that Instead of overtly implying that you personally think that you should be ranked as an equal among the historical figures such as “Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes,” you should let other people declare your greatness.

Otherwise you’ll only sound like some kind of preening blowhard whose ego has gotten the best of him.

Now, of course, it is needless to say that you are going to ignore my advice and continue to hold up your remarkably unimpressive - 3 measly years of studying Kant - as some kind of reason why the rest of us (including Wiki) should bow to your unprecedented level of knowledge and authority.

(Do you have any idea of how tiny and ridiculous you sound as you constantly point that out?)

Now setting all of that aside, it is quite obvious (to me, anyway) that your fan-boy worshipping of Kant has you so narrowly focused on the details of the bark, and the limbs, and the leaves of the singular “tree” of Kantianism that you have completely lost sight of the forest.

I have often suggested that if there truly does exist a Creative Intelligence (a God) who is capable of willfully forming the subjectively-based (mental) fabric of its very own being into a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets (as per a Berkeleyan form of idealism/Panentheism),...

...then this living Entity is so far above us in scope and consciousness that we are nothing more than the metaphorical equivalent of amoebas in comparison.

In which case, the chances of “amoeba Kant” holding an accurate understanding and assessment of the highest levels (and truths) of reality, are about as likely as an actual amoeba in a petri dish, holding an accurate understanding and assessment of the human level of reality.

Veritas, just like most humans on earth, you are sleepwalking through life, and you are completely unaware (unconscious) of the possibility of there being a higher level of wakefulness above and outside of this dream-like illusion we call a universe.

And what that means is that the more heartfelt and passionate you are in articulating your faith in hardcore materialism, then the more you demonstrate – in direct proportion – the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

And don’t ask me to prove such a claim, because proof would require you waking up, and that is something that you must accomplish on your own.
_______

I believe in the discussions of Philosophy it is critical for each to list down their philosophical CV and credentials unshamefully.
For example if I know you have dug deep into philosopher X's work and I have done the same, that will save time in delving into the basic of philosopher X.
In another example, if you are average and have spent a long time digging into Hegel while I have not, then I would not arrogantly [based on my personal opinion] insist you are wrong on your interpretation of Hegel's work. I will shut up or ask for more info and leads and if the point is serious enough I will read up Hegel thoroughly and understand [not necessary agree] Hegel to argue the point with you.

It should be a fact to you that you have not explored the personal fundamental psychology within yourself in relation with your own philosophical proclivities and stances. As such whatever you proposed is subjected to a big hole which leaks. You need to cover this psychological hole for your own sake and confidence level on what you proposed philosophically else you are caught with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It is not easy to get through this psychological barrier because humans are programmed with a defense mechanism NOT to understand their own psychological state.

[Atla]

Looks to me that this is how it probably went:

1. First, noumenon meant objects from Plato's world of forms and ideas, they were treated as real.
2. Then Kant showed that the Platonic world of forms and ideas is probably just a cognitive illusion, so this noumenon isn't real. But at the end he was forced to admit that another kind of noumenon could be real (just directly unknowable), that's behind sensual appearances.
3. Nowadays, noumenon just means what's behind sensual appearances. Plus all the things that don't even appear but may be still 'out there'. No one in their right mind is associating it with Plato's world of forms and ideas anymore so why continue to strawman the discussion with that?

[Atla]

Quite frankly, the dual aspect interpretation of the thing-in-itself is the only reason I was attracted to the Kantian world in the first place (though I didn’t know there was a name for it at the time).

The dual-aspect interpretation of the appearance vs thing-in-itself was annihilated by modern science and psychology. How did you actually miss that? And your QM nonsense is a thing to behold, but apart from that, the way you are taking VA apart is pretty accurate and hilarious.

[Atla]

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.

You're the one person on this forum who could actually benefit from spending a year reading Kant. Maybe he could make you understand that you are indeed basing your entire 'philosophy' on cognitive illusions, that's why you will never make an impact.

[Atla]

I have long suspected that I'm the only person left on this forum who is both intelligent and has a clue, but now I'm finally completely certain of it. This isn't even funny anymore so I'm off, I'm just making a fool of myself by being here.

That's pretty sad considering I never even attempted to get into the really deep stuff, just always talked about the basics. The basics are beyond everyone here.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

You're the one person on this forum who could actually benefit from spending a year reading Kant. Maybe he could make you understand that you are indeed basing your entire 'philosophy' on cognitive illusions, that's why you will never make an impact.

Holographic universe theory is "a" trend...so physics really isn't deny it. A 2d universe as well, physics isn't entirely deny that either.

I read Kant. Tested on him in university, then years later read him on my own.

He contradicts himself, as his philosophy is rooted in conflicting "perspectives" (perspectivism).

Knowledge that is apriori is the category of a posterior, but this a posteriori knowledge proves apriori.

The only common median between both apriori and a posterior is space. It is the intrinsic variable that can be seen within both the senses and without them and as such is not only an underlying median but self referencing. Space is it's own context as all contexts required a concentric referential state...space exists through space. Even our language is described in spatial terms:

Getting to the point
Going on circles
Line of reason
Etc.

As well as our emotions:
He is feeling up
He is going forward in life
She feels down
There stance goes back and forth
Etc. (I have a whole thread on this one)

Besides talking about how great Kant is (like the majority of philosophers), when philosophy is in its death cries, is like saying Pepperonia pizza is the best when everyone is going out for chinese.

Kant layered labels with labels and gave the illusion of knowledge but these "labels"...they are both a priori and a posteriori as they are contexts....philosophy falls apart in light of contextuality and hyper relativity.

God(s) is(are) context(s).

[Eodnhoj7]

I have long suspected that I'm the only person left on this forum who is both intelligent and has a clue, but now I'm finally completely certain of it. This isn't even funny anymore so I'm off, I'm just making a fool of myself by being here.

That's pretty sad considering I never even attempted to get into the really deep stuff, just always talked about the basics. The basics are beyond everyone here.

You have no basics...you have assumptions you believe because they where repeated over and over again...as a matter of fact the knowledge is quite useless and unappreciated.

As a matter of fact, and I brought this up to veritas, if you had any clue you would see I am just using a cyclonic-vacuum type logic and no matter what you do or argue...it will be spun, atomized and put back together again in another form.

I create and destroy stuff without cause purpose, or even direction....so it would be best for your ego if you just left the forum....

[Eodnhoj7]

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.
_______

Actually that is not my personal views but that definition and attribute of God is what is believed by theists.

Are you serious with Philosophy [note you are in a philosophy forum].

Here is how theologians defined their ultimate God;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
  
  The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as
  "a being than which no greater can be conceived"
  
  French philosopher René Descartes employed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being.
  
  In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept.

Read more of the above before you ignorantly and foolishly condemned my P2 as total nonsense. Woh .. what arrogance in throwing sh1t at me with you standing in front of a fast turning fan.

The theists's earlier empirical based definitions of god were countered and trashed by the oppositions [atheists and other theists]. Thus their gradually incremental definitions toward more solid definitions ending with the ontological definition as the ultimate bastion. But they don't realize they have checkmated themselves.

The only probable explanation for all the fuss above is the invidual's psychological state which I have been expounding.

Red herring, the context provided diverts other manners of how people define God and also ogonroe contexts that state God is an undefined term.

[Atla]

Holographic universe theory is "a" trend...so physics really isn't deny it. A 2d universe as well, physics isn't entirely deny that either.

Not for long, the holographic universe theory mostly resulted from one of the biggest blunders in 20th century physics, having to do with not even wrong ideas about black holes and information. How such nonsense found its way into physics is an interesting topic in itself.

Right now the first direct studies about black holes are coming in, and they are of course refuting these ideas.

Even our language is described in spatial terms:

Getting to the point
Going on circles
Line of reason
Etc.

As well as our emotions:
He is feeling up
He is going forward in life
She feels down
There stance goes back and forth
Etc. (I have a whole thread on this one)

So? You are simply misinterpreting everything here as Platonic shapes, in other words your entire 'philosophy' is based on cognitive illusions.
(Which is admittedly funny in small doses)