PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself

[Veritas Aequitas]

"But though the moral law thus gives us a ground of determination which is independent of any sensuous condition and consequently is purely intelligible, yet, as determining ground of a being that belongs to the world of sense, it must be able to affect the sensibility of this being and thus must produce a feeling of pleasure or pain, of which the latter is called the moral feeling. ...."

The thing-in-itself reified as God is intelligible but being able to be thought can effect sensibility to produce various feelings.
Kant had proven the idea of God is a best an illusion can never be a real thing which the senses can interact directly like seeing a real apple.

The noumena aka thing-in-itself traceable to the idea of freedom, soul, the-World and God are at best illusion and never real in the sensible dimensions.

Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immortality of the soul.
Although we cannot have knowledge of these things, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind rational faith.
Thus in answer to the question, “What may I hope?” Kant replies that we may hope that our souls are immortal and that there really is a God who designed the world in accordance with principles of justice.
https://iep.utm.edu/kantview/

we cannot have knowledge of these things;
no knowledge mean cannot be real in the knowledge sense, i.e. the empirical FS.

What Kant imply is;
freedom can be justified within a moral framework and system,
but there is no way
we can claim it is real within the scientific-FS sense.
What can be justified, i.e. justified within a FS does not confer it is real in the scientific sense.

[Iwannaplato]

The thing-in-itself reified as God is intelligible but being able to be thought can effect sensibility to produce various feelings.
Kant had proven the idea of God is a best an illusion can never be a real thing which the senses can interact directly like seeing a real apple.

The noumena aka thing-in-itself traceable to the idea of freedom, soul, the-World and God are at best illusion and never real in the sensible dimensions.

Tell that to Kant. He considered moral law to be noumenon. He considered freedom to be noumenon. His morals are depend on these things.

we cannot have knowledge of these things;
no knowledge mean cannot be real in the knowledge sense, i.e. the empirical FS.
What Kant imply is;
freedom can be justified within a moral framework and system,
but there is no way
we can claim it is real within the scientific-FS sense.
What can be justified, i.e. justified within a FS does not confer it is real in the scientific sense.

Again, this is just word games. Kant considered both moral law and freedom to be noumena. Kant could not possibly have considered these things False and Unreal, or what would be the point of talking about morals at all. Freedom also being integral to being a moral person. Obviously Kant considered it possible to be moral so he cannot have considered noumena per se false and unreal.

Ask the AI you often quote. Please don't come back with the answers you find. I am sure there is some way to manipulate AIs to give many different answers. But on your own time, for yourself, ask the AIs if Kant considered noumena false and unreal.

And in fact much of his system is based on the presumption that certain noumena are necessary for one to be moral. Unless someone wants to argue that Kant was a moral antirealist, that should end the discussion.

For Kant, the ideas of freedom and the moral law are noumenal because they transcend empirical experience and belong to the realm of pure reason. For Kant, this noumenal realm provides the foundation for our moral agency and the possibility of acting morally. Without it, there is no possibility of being moral. Not merely without us thinking it's real, without it being the case.

Of course, none of this means that you are wrong in your moral realism. It just means that Kant does not support your stance on noumena. This has been pointed out to you by others in different ways, for example by Atla.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated we need to take AI with reservations and very heavy reservations especially with the very difficult Kantian philosophy.
I deal with a few AIs and I do not fully agree with them especially on the refined aspect of Kantian philosophy.

Note the case with Atla, where AI stated "I made a mistake ..." which was from a general basis, but when I highlighted the nuance of considering from the antirealists' perspective, AI gave a contrasting answer.
We cannot blame AI [acknowledge itself as vulnerable to mistakes] but the blame is the person [e.g. Atla the ignorant arrogant kindi gnat ] who interact with AI.

If anyone insist they are right about Kant, show me the relevant references in the full context from Kant's CPR [A/B xxx references] and other works.

[Iwannaplato]

As I had stated we need to take AI with reservations and very heavy reservations especially with the very difficult Kantian philosophy.
I deal with a few AIs and I do not fully agree with them especially on the refined aspect of Kantian philosophy.

Note the case with Atla, where AI stated "I made a mistake ..." which was from a general basis, but when I highlighted the nuance of considering from the antirealists' perspective, AI gave a contrasting answer.
We cannot blame AI [acknowledge itself as vulnerable to mistakes] but the blame is the person [e.g. Atla the ignorant arrogant kindi gnat ] who interact with AI.

If anyone insist they are right about Kant, show me the relevant references in the full context from Kant's CPR [A/B xxx references] and other works.

Of course AIs can be wrong, whether the issue is refined or not. I raise the issue of checking AIs because you appeal to AI authority. Other people here do not and I wouldn't have suggested they check. Atla has many times pointed out that the output fits the way questions are phrased. His gnat-like cranium pointed this out long before you did and before you started adding provisos to your AI appeals to authority.

I've given you quotes from the CPR and these are easy to find in the CPR through searchable versions online. The CPR is itself the complete context. Further these are not ideas from some single portion of Kant's CPR and other works. They are key points that form the basis for his positions on morality (and noumena). They are givens throughout.

But, sure, there are different takes on Kant. Which is a good reason to stop using Kant as an authority figure. This creates the vast distraction of did Kant really say X and my interpretation of Kant is better than yours. Because in the end Kant is, obviously, fallible, as is any philosopher.

Can you frame things on your own and then interact with the actual points made by other people? Or are other people's points merely to be quoted and then you restate your original opinion, not managing to integrate their responses into your answers?

[Atla]

His gnat-like cranium

Lately I thought about writing my memoir and naming it 'Contemplations on gnathood'. Me, the poor little gnat, lost in a world I don't understand, having to listen to people all day who are smarter than me and who keep saying things I can't wrap my head around. I'm confused and without confidence. But I sure try my darndest to be noticed anyway, by incessantly pestering people!

[Iwannaplato]

His gnat-like cranium

Lately I thought about writing my memoir and naming it 'Contemplations on gnathood'. Me, the poor little gnat, lost in a world I don't understand, having to listen to people all day who are smarter than me and who keep saying things I can't wrap my head around. I'm confused and without confidence. But I sure try my darndest to be noticed anyway, by incessantly pestering people!

Me too, but I just got demoted to gadfly.