Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

[Atla]

You idiot. Our ideas about God are made-up illusions, and there is no reason to believe that such Gods exist at all. However that does NOT mean that such or similar Gods, in fact, certainly do not exist.

Stop trying to twist what Kant said.

Don't try to insist when you have not read Kant thoroughly.

In the above I have shown God is a transcendental illusion.
Illusions cannot be real either empirically, logically nor transcendentally.
Prove to me illusions by definition are real empirically.

What is real is merely the brain engaging in perceiving or cognizing an illusion, like seeing a mirage of an oasis in the desert.

Come back when YOU have read Kant thoroughly.
He made it clear the we can't be certain about what's 'out there'. So we CAN'T be certain that in some way, somewhere, there aren't actually real referents to the illusions we experience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You idiot. Our ideas about God are made-up illusions, and there is no reason to believe that such Gods exist at all. However that does NOT mean that such or similar Gods, in fact, certainly do not exist.

Stop trying to twist what Kant said.

Don't try to insist when you have not read Kant thoroughly.

In the above I have shown God is a transcendental illusion.
Illusions cannot be real either empirically, logically nor transcendentally.
Prove to me illusions by definition are real empirically.

What is real is merely the brain engaging in perceiving or cognizing an illusion, like seeing a mirage of an oasis in the desert.

Come back when YOU have read Kant thoroughly.
He made it clear the we can't be certain about what's 'out there'. So we CAN'T be certain that in some way, somewhere, there aren't actually real referents to the illusions we experience.

What Kant is certain as proven is, what theists claimed to be certain of, i.e. God as real is illusory. Note my proofs in the OP above.

[Atla]

Don't try to insist when you have not read Kant thoroughly.

In the above I have shown God is a transcendental illusion.
Illusions cannot be real either empirically, logically nor transcendentally.
Prove to me illusions by definition are real empirically.

What is real is merely the brain engaging in perceiving or cognizing an illusion, like seeing a mirage of an oasis in the desert.

Come back when YOU have read Kant thoroughly.
He made it clear the we can't be certain about what's 'out there'. So we CAN'T be certain that in some way, somewhere, there aren't actually real referents to the illusions we experience.

What Kant is certain as proven is, what theists claimed to be certain of, i.e. God as real is illusory. Note my proofs in the OP above.

"what theists claimed to be certain of" is not the same as "God as real is illusory"
Come back when you speak English.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Come back when YOU have read Kant thoroughly.
He made it clear the we can't be certain about what's 'out there'. So we CAN'T be certain that in some way, somewhere, there aren't actually real referents to the illusions we experience.

What Kant is certain as proven is, what theists claimed to be certain of, i.e. God as real is illusory. Note my proofs in the OP above.

"what theists claimed to be certain of" is not the same as "God as real is illusory"
Come back when you speak English.

You are bankrupt of proper argument and you are giving silly excuses such as the above.

It is obvious what theists claimed to be certain of, is God is real.
I have proven the above to be otherwise, i.e. God is not real but an illusion.

[Atla]

What Kant is certain as proven is, what theists claimed to be certain of, i.e. God as real is illusory. Note my proofs in the OP above.

"what theists claimed to be certain of" is not the same as "God as real is illusory"
Come back when you speak English.

You are bankrupt of proper argument and you are giving silly excuses such as the above.

It is obvious what theists claimed to be certain of, is God is real.
I have proven the above to be otherwise, i.e. God is not real but an illusion.

Again: "what theists claimed to be certain of" is not the same as "God as real is illusory".
The first claim is strictly about what some theists are certain of (and you also misunderstand the word theist). The second one is a universal denial of possibility.

Come back when you speak English, idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"what theists claimed to be certain of" is not the same as "God as real is illusory"
Come back when you speak English.

You are bankrupt of proper argument and you are giving silly excuses such as the above.

It is obvious what theists claimed to be certain of, is God is real.
I have proven the above to be otherwise, i.e. God is not real but an illusion.

Again: "what theists claimed to be certain of" is not the same as "God as real is illusory".

The first claim is strictly about what some theists are certain of (and you also misunderstand the word theist). The second one is a universal denial of possibility.

Come back when you speak English, idiot.

"The first claim is strictly about what some theists are certain of (and you also misunderstand the word theist)."
Surely theists are certain their God is real, otherwise what else, false?

"The second one is a universal denial of possibility."
I have proven, for God to be real is an impossibility.

[Atla]

You are bankrupt of proper argument and you are giving silly excuses such as the above.

It is obvious what theists claimed to be certain of, is God is real.
I have proven the above to be otherwise, i.e. God is not real but an illusion.

Again: "what theists claimed to be certain of" is not the same as "God as real is illusory".

The first claim is strictly about what some theists are certain of (and you also misunderstand the word theist). The second one is a universal denial of possibility.

Come back when you speak English, idiot.

"The first claim is strictly about what some theists are certain of (and you also misunderstand the word theist)."
Surely theists are certain their God is real, otherwise what else, false?

"The second one is a universal denial of possibility."
I have proven, for God to be real is an impossibility.

No, you are just a total idiot.
Philosophy 101, it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Everyone knows that, except you apparently.

[Dontaskme]

Don't try to insist when you have not read Kant thoroughly.

Kant is dead so the ''thoughts'' that are presupposed to be Kant's were not 'his thoughts'... If they were 'his thoughts' they would have died along with him...And yet these 'thought's' live on in transcript. In other words, 'thought's' belong to no one and every one.
A.K.A the same ONE

In the above I have shown God is a transcendental illusion.
Illusions cannot be real either empirically, logically nor transcendentally.
Prove to me illusions by definition are real empirically.

There is no KNOWN knowledge without ''Thought'' which cannot be proven to exist empirically, and yet all knowledge is dependent upon what cannot be proven empirically. Therefore knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality. That said, the illusion is REAL as is every other hallucination of the brain is real AS OBSERVED, and known conceptually via transcript.
It's totally absurd to state there is such a thing as an ''unreal real'' since the idea of ( a real ) sticks...in other words ( a real ) cannot not be a real as in unreal, there is no such thing as a non real real.

What is real is merely the brain engaging in perceiving or cognizing an illusion, like seeing a mirage of an oasis in the desert.

Which is almost like saying ..An illusion knows it is an illusion. And that ''knowing'' is what is real .. ta da! HERE IT IS...THIS IS IT.

Irrefutably self-evident without doubt or error.
.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again: "what theists claimed to be certain of" is not the same as "God as real is illusory".

The first claim is strictly about what some theists are certain of (and you also misunderstand the word theist). The second one is a universal denial of possibility.

Come back when you speak English, idiot.

"The first claim is strictly about what some theists are certain of (and you also misunderstand the word theist)."
Surely theists are certain their God is real, otherwise what else, false?

"The second one is a universal denial of possibility."
I have proven, for God to be real is an impossibility.

No, you are just a total idiot.
Philosophy 101, it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Everyone knows that, except you apparently.

As I had stated I am not trying to prove a negative per se.
What I have demonstrated the idea of a god as real is a non-starter.

Beside the impossibility of a square-circle, it is like trying to prove a Married-Bachelor exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't try to insist when you have not read Kant thoroughly.

Kant is dead so the ''thoughts'' that are presupposed to be Kant's were not 'his thoughts'... If they were 'his thoughts' they would have died along with him...And yet these 'thought's' live on in transcript. In other words, 'thought's' belong to no one and every one.
A.K.A the same ONE

In the above I have shown God is a transcendental illusion.
Illusions cannot be real either empirically, logically nor transcendentally.
Prove to me illusions by definition are real empirically.

There is no KNOWN knowledge without ''Thought'' which cannot be proven to exist empirically, and yet all knowledge is dependent upon what cannot be proven empirically. Therefore knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality. That said, the illusion is REAL as is every other hallucination of the brain is real AS OBSERVED, and known conceptually via transcript.
It's totally absurd to state there is such a thing as an ''unreal real'' since the idea of ( a real ) sticks...in other words ( a real ) cannot not be a real as in unreal, there is no such thing as a non real real.

What is real is merely the brain engaging in perceiving or cognizing an illusion, like seeing a mirage of an oasis in the desert.

Which is almost like saying ..An illusion knows it is an illusion. And that ''knowing'' is what is real .. ta da! HERE IT IS...THIS IS IT.

Irrefutably self-evident without doubt or error.
.

I suggested you get medicated.
If you want to post, at least deal with the points in the OP.

[Atla]

As I had stated I am not trying to prove a negative per se.
What I have demonstrated the idea of a god as real is a non-starter.

Beside the impossibility of a square-circle, it is like trying to prove a Married-Bachelor exists.

You ARE trying to prove a negative.
Square-circle and married-bachelor are everyday conceptual oxymorons. That has no bearing on the possible existence of a natural or supernatural 'God'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated I am not trying to prove a negative per se.
What I have demonstrated the idea of a god as real is a non-starter.

Beside the impossibility of a square-circle, it is like trying to prove a Married-Bachelor exists.

You ARE trying to prove a negative.
Square-circle and married-bachelor are everyday conceptual oxymorons. That has no bearing on the possible existence of a natural or supernatural 'God'.

"An illusion [transcendental] is real" is also an oxymoron.

[Dontaskme]

Beside the impossibility of a square-circle, it is like trying to prove a Married-Bachelor exists.

You are stuck in a conceptual dream.

A square or a circle is an image of the imageless, images are illusions. No one has ever seen a circle or a square, they simply do not exist in reality. Reality is not in relationship with any other thing other than itself, which is the artificial conception of itself as imagined.
''I AM the consummate artist, I draw upon my imagination''



.

[Atla]

As I had stated I am not trying to prove a negative per se.
What I have demonstrated the idea of a god as real is a non-starter.

Beside the impossibility of a square-circle, it is like trying to prove a Married-Bachelor exists.

You ARE trying to prove a negative.
Square-circle and married-bachelor are everyday conceptual oxymorons. That has no bearing on the possible existence of a natural or supernatural 'God'.

"An illusion [transcendental] is real" is also an oxymoron.

It's not. It's just probably not real based on what we can tell about the world.

[Dontaskme]

"An illusion [transcendental] is real" is also an oxymoron.

There are no contradictions or paradox's in nature.

An oxymoron is simply an illusory concept no one is making.

.