Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]

[Averroes]

OK, noted. I was thinking too far ahead with my point re taking the leap from the Conditioned to the Unconditioned.

That happens, but let us go slowly on this one if you don't mind to prevent this from happening again. Firstly let me ask you, do you agree with Kant on the passage quoted?

Kant is clearly saying that the Design argument though insufficient to demonstrate the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator, however, it does demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works.
Do you agree with Kant on that much?

I agree Kant's points as quoted above, but it needs detailed expositions.

I duly noted your detailed exposition. But still let us go slowly on this. So, you agree with Kant that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but you find it insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you confirm again?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That happens, but let us go slowly on this one if you don't mind to prevent this from happening again. Firstly let me ask you, do you agree with Kant on the passage quoted?

Kant is clearly saying that the Design argument though insufficient to demonstrate the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator, however, it does demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works.
Do you agree with Kant on that much?

I agree Kant's points as quoted above, but it needs detailed expositions.

I duly noted your detailed exposition. But still let us go slowly on this. So, you agree with Kant that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but you find it insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you confirm again?

Yes, according to Kant.

I have to highlight the statement that followed from the above; [mine]

• To prove the contingency of Matter itself [the All-Sufficient Creator], we should have to resort to a Transcendental argument, and this is precisely what we have here set out to avoid.
  B655

[Averroes]

I agree Kant's points as quoted above, but it needs detailed expositions.

I duly noted your detailed exposition. But still let us go slowly on this. So, you agree with Kant that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but you find it insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you confirm again?

Yes, according to Kant.

Thank you for confirming. So for me personally, I think you are simply denying the attributes of God as being the All-Sufficient Creator and Maintainer of all things, but you do not deny His very existence as you and Kant acknowledges His existence merely as the Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the material with which He works. You and Kant cannot make the step that God, Himself create as He wills the material with which He created the world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I duly noted your detailed exposition. But still let us go slowly on this. So, you agree with Kant that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but you find it insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you confirm again?

Yes, according to Kant.

Thank you for confirming. So for me personally, I think you are simply denying the attributes of God as being the All-Sufficient Creator and Maintainer of all things, but you do not deny His very existence as you and Kant acknowledges His existence merely as the Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the material with which He works. You and Kant cannot make the step that God, Himself create as He wills the material with which He created the world.

It is not merely "the step" but rather that is a BIG fallacious leap of equivocation.
The whole of Kant's CPR support his argument; in addition, Kant alluded the big leap is due to psychological factors.

I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. the Author/Fashioner of the world.

I agree with Kant's argument that we cannot take the big leap from the conditioned matter [empirical world] to the unconditioned matter-in-itself [world of illusion via Pure Reason].

[Averroes]

Yes, according to Kant.

Thank you for confirming. So for me personally, I think you are simply denying the attributes of God as being the All-Sufficient Creator and Maintainer of all things, but you do not deny His very existence as you and Kant acknowledges His existence merely as the Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the material with which He works. You and Kant cannot make the step that God, Himself create as He wills the material with which He created the world.

It is not merely "the step" but rather that is a BIG fallacious leap of equivocation.
The whole of Kant's CPR support his argument; in addition, Kant alluded the big leap is due to psychological factors.

I agree with Kant's argument that we cannot take the big leap from the conditioned matter [empirical world] to the unconditioned matter-in-itself [world of illusion via Pure Reason].

I understand better where you are coming from now. For me personally, you cannot be called an atheist. You are definitely a theist, although a peculiar one, if you accept the existence of an Author of the world who is limited by the material with which He works. No atheist will accept the existence of an Author of the world. So, I think your main problem is that your scientific knowledge has room for improvement. May Allah, The All-Knowing guide you to the truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thank you for confirming. So for me personally, I think you are simply denying the attributes of God as being the All-Sufficient Creator and Maintainer of all things, but you do not deny His very existence as you and Kant acknowledges His existence merely as the Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the material with which He works. You and Kant cannot make the step that God, Himself create as He wills the material with which He created the world.

It is not merely "the step" but rather that is a BIG fallacious leap of equivocation.
The whole of Kant's CPR support his argument; in addition, Kant alluded the big leap is due to psychological factors.

I agree with Kant's argument that we cannot take the big leap from the conditioned matter [empirical world] to the unconditioned matter-in-itself [world of illusion via Pure Reason].

I understand better where you are coming from now. For me personally, you cannot be called an atheist. You are definitely a theist, although a peculiar one, if you accept the existence of an Author of the world who is limited by the material with which He works. No atheist will accept the existence of an Author of the world. So, I think your main problem is that your scientific knowledge has room for improvement. May Allah, The All-Knowing guide you to the truth.

I believe you missed my post above which happened to cross.

"I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. the Author/Fashioner of the world."

[Averroes]

It is not merely "the step" but rather that is a BIG fallacious leap of equivocation.
The whole of Kant's CPR support his argument; in addition, Kant alluded the big leap is due to psychological factors.

I agree with Kant's argument that we cannot take the big leap from the conditioned matter [empirical world] to the unconditioned matter-in-itself [world of illusion via Pure Reason].

I understand better where you are coming from now. For me personally, you cannot be called an atheist. You are definitely a theist, although a peculiar one, if you accept the existence of an Author of the world who is limited by the material with which He works. No atheist will accept the existence of an Author of the world. So, I think your main problem is that your scientific knowledge has room for improvement. May Allah, The All-Knowing guide you to the truth.

I believe you missed my post above which happened to cross.

"I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. the Author/Fashioner of the world."

That statement was not there when I quoted your post. Did you add it later?
Alright, so you don't use the word "God", but you are fine with the phrase "the Author/Fashioner of the world"? Is this what you are saying by the added sentence?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I understand better where you are coming from now. For me personally, you cannot be called an atheist. You are definitely a theist, although a peculiar one, if you accept the existence of an Author of the world who is limited by the material with which He works. No atheist will accept the existence of an Author of the world. So, I think your main problem is that your scientific knowledge has room for improvement. May Allah, The All-Knowing guide you to the truth.

I believe you missed my post above which happened to cross.

"I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. the Author/Fashioner of the world."

That statement was not there when I quoted your post. Did you add it later?
Alright, so you don't use the word "God", but you are fine with the phrase "the Author/Fashioner of the world"? Is this what you are saying by the added sentence?

If I had added it later, there would be a remark 'edited x times' at the bottom of the post.
viewtopic.php?p=638100#p638100
It is likely I posted while you were in the midst of replying.

I stated,
"I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. [for example] the Author/Fashioner of the world."

I do not agree with the term 'God' and I am not fine with the terms "the Author/Fashioner of the world" "Creator" or the like.

[Averroes]

I believe you missed my post above which happened to cross.

"I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. the Author/Fashioner of the world."

That statement was not there when I quoted your post. Did you add it later?
Alright, so you don't use the word "God", but you are fine with the phrase "the Author/Fashioner of the world"? Is this what you are saying by the added sentence?

If I had added it later, there would be a remark 'edited x times' at the bottom of the post.
viewtopic.php?p=638100#p638100
It is likely you did not read my post while you were replying.

I did not modify your post when I quoted it. You must have added that statement after I quoted it and before I posted the quotation. There will not be "edited x-times" in such a scenario. Anyway, that's not very important, I just want you to know that I did not edit your post when I quoted it.

I stated,
"I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. the Author/Fashioner of the world."

I do not agree with the term 'God' and I am not fine with the terms "the Author/Fashioner of the world" "Creator" or the like.

Alright. But you are still agreeing with Kant when he said that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but find it is insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Is that correct? Can you re-confirm again?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That statement was not there when I quoted your post. Did you add it later?
Alright, so you don't use the word "God", but you are fine with the phrase "the Author/Fashioner of the world"? Is this what you are saying by the added sentence?

If I had added it later, there would be a remark 'edited x times' at the bottom of the post.
viewtopic.php?p=638100#p638100
It is likely you did not read my post while you were replying.

I did not modify your post when I quoted it. You must have added that statement after I quoted it and before I posted the quotation. There will not be "edited x-times" in such a scenario. Anyway, that's not very important, I just want you to know that I did not edit your post when I quoted it.

I stated,
"I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. the Author/Fashioner of the world."

I do not agree with the term 'God' and I am not fine with the terms "the Author/Fashioner of the world" "Creator" or the like.

Alright. But you are still agreeing with Kant when he said that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but find it is insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Is that correct? Can you re-confirm again?

To be more precise and to avoid further confusion;

I personally disagree with Kant when he said that
the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but find it is insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Averroes, to add to the above,

Whilst Kant made the above statements which I disagrees with,
ultimately, to Kant, the idea of the existence of an Author of the world, the All-Sufficient Creator, are illusions, albeit useful illusions.
I agree they are all illusions and useful illusions.

[Averroes]

If I had added it later, there would be a remark 'edited x times' at the bottom of the post.
viewtopic.php?p=638100#p638100
It is likely you did not read my post while you were replying.

I did not modify your post when I quoted it. You must have added that statement after I quoted it and before I posted the quotation. There will not be "edited x-times" in such a scenario. Anyway, that's not very important, I just want you to know that I did not edit your post when I quoted it.

I stated,
"I do not agree with Kant [he had his reasons] where he used the term "God" e.g. the Author/Fashioner of the world."

I do not agree with the term 'God' and I am not fine with the terms "the Author/Fashioner of the world" "Creator" or the like.

Alright. But you are still agreeing with Kant when he said that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but find it is insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Is that correct? Can you re-confirm again?

To be more precise and to avoid further confusion;

I personally disagree with Kant when he said that
the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but find it is insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator.

But you agreed with him before and twice I asked you to explicitly confirm which you did. For example:

I agree Kant's points as quoted above, but it needs detailed expositions.

I duly noted your detailed exposition. But still let us go slowly on this. So, you agree with Kant that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but you find it insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you confirm again?

Yes, according to Kant.

So, twice you agreed and now you are disagreeing on the same subject in the span of about two hours! What made you change your mind so fast?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not modify your post when I quoted it. You must have added that statement after I quoted it and before I posted the quotation. There will not be "edited x-times" in such a scenario. Anyway, that's not very important, I just want you to know that I did not edit your post when I quoted it.


Alright. But you are still agreeing with Kant when he said that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but find it is insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Is that correct? Can you re-confirm again?

To be more precise and to avoid further confusion;

I personally disagree with Kant when he said that
the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but find it is insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator.

But you agreed with him before and twice I asked you to explicitly confirm which you did. For example:

I duly noted your detailed exposition. But still let us go slowly on this. So, you agree with Kant that the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but you find it insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you confirm again?

Yes, according to Kant.

What made you change your mind so fast?

Note I stated "yes, according to Kant" not "according to me personally."

The problem is a matter of communication.
I had studied Kant full time for 3 years and continually refresh on Kant's view since then, so I know where I stand especially on this particular critical point relating to Kant us of the term 'god'. I believe he used the term 'god' to please the authorities then.

[Agent Smith]

Welcome to the Carmen Wermer show. Today we will begin by ... with a question. What is not a wombat? Has anyone in the audience seen a wombat? Wombats are cool and to edify us on these critters we have Seth Widal who has spent the last 45 years studying ... studying ...? ?? WOMBATS!!

[Averroes]

To be more precise and to avoid further confusion;

I personally disagree with Kant when he said that
the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but find it is insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator.

But you agreed with him before and twice I asked you to explicitly confirm which you did. For example:

Yes, according to Kant.

What made you change your mind so fast?

Note I stated "yes, according to Kant" not "according to me personally."

Alright. Thank you for the clarification. Our choice of going slow on the subject is paying finally as we are able to clarify and understand each other better. So let us continue going slow if you don't mind.

So, you were agreeing that for Kant only (and not you personally) the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but that Kant found it to be insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you re-confirm?