VA Conflate TR with PR??

[Iwannaplato]

Pretty spot on. VA also forgets that Kant brought God back as a necessary regulative idea or something, which is exactly what the Islamists would do with Allah and his commandments.
LOL!

Wrong again.

Kant refers to 'God' as a useful illusion and as a regulative idea for his moral project.

Apart from the fact that he thought it was necessary for us to have immortal souls and there to be a God for us to be moral agents, let's set that aside and accept your interpretation. It wasn't a useful illusion, it was a necessary illusion. And here you are trying to eliminate that illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pretty spot on. VA also forgets that Kant brought God back as a necessary regulative idea or something, which is exactly what the Islamists would do with Allah and his commandments.
LOL!

Wrong again.

Kant refers to 'God' as a useful illusion and as a regulative idea for his moral project.
I don't agree with the term 'God' [illusion] but I could accept Kant's alternative Ens Realissimum

On the other hand, Islam claim God exists constitutively [substantially real] i.e. God exists as a real entity who sent his messages/commands to a prophet; all believers must accept this God is constitutively real, i.e. most real enough to promise a real eternal life in a real paradise with 72 real virgins. This is why this realness give believers the confidence to sacrifice their earthly life as a martyr and as permitted by God, kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.

Doesn't really matter whether it's a regulative idea or constitutively real when people act on it either way.

It make a lot of difference. Can you see the difference from the above.

"A God that is claimed as constitutively real .. This is why this realness give believers the confidence to sacrifice their earthly life as a martyr and as permitted by God, kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion."

Those who recognize God as an illusion regulatively, do not accept a real God that is giving them commands to act. They would merely call out 'God' to relieve their existential pains whenever it is triggered. Kant used the illusory God regulatively for his moral project.

A parent would accept Santa regulatively as an illusory being with potential $pending$ while his kids would believe in a real Santa from the North Constitutively, giving him real toys.

Some scientists accept the "unknowable noumenon" as an impossible-to-be-realized ideal regulatively which would guide them to greater verifiable discovery. This is merely a thought and not something constitutively real substantially that can be confirmed as real eventually.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pretty spot on. VA also forgets that Kant brought God back as a necessary regulative idea or something, which is exactly what the Islamists would do with Allah and his commandments.
LOL!

Wrong again.

Kant refers to 'God' as a useful illusion and as a regulative idea for his moral project.

Apart from the fact that he thought it was necessary for us to have immortal souls and there to be a God for us to be moral agents, let's set that aside and accept your interpretation. It wasn't a useful illusion, it was a necessary illusion. And here you are trying to eliminate that illusion.

Nope.
It is only an illusion when philosophical realists hypostatize or reify the thing-in-itself as real.
It is not universally necessary but useful for those who want to assume it into their FSERC, FSK, model or theory.

[Atla]

Wrong again.

Kant refers to 'God' as a useful illusion and as a regulative idea for his moral project.
I don't agree with the term 'God' [illusion] but I could accept Kant's alternative Ens Realissimum

On the other hand, Islam claim God exists constitutively [substantially real] i.e. God exists as a real entity who sent his messages/commands to a prophet; all believers must accept this God is constitutively real, i.e. most real enough to promise a real eternal life in a real paradise with 72 real virgins. This is why this realness give believers the confidence to sacrifice their earthly life as a martyr and as permitted by God, kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.

Doesn't really matter whether it's a regulative idea or constitutively real when people act on it either way.

It make a lot of difference. Can you see the difference from the above.

"A God that is claimed as constitutively real .. This is why this realness give believers the confidence to sacrifice their earthly life as a martyr and as permitted by God, kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion."

Those who recognize God as an illusion regulatively, do not accept a real God that is giving them commands to act. They would merely call out 'God' to relieve their existential pains whenever it is triggered. Kant used the illusory God regulatively for his moral project.

A parent would accept Santa regulatively as an illusory being with potential $pending$ while his kids would believe in a real Santa from the North Constitutively, giving him real toys.

Some scientists accept the "unknowable noumenon" as an impossible-to-be-realized ideal regulatively which would guide them to greater verifiable discovery. This is merely a thought and not something constitutively real substantially that can be confirmed as real eventually.

So Kant thought that no one should follow his moral philosophy, behave accordingly? Then why did he brother writing it?

[Iwannaplato]

So Kant thought that no one should follow his moral philosophy, behave accordingly? Then why did he brother writing it?

Yes, it seems VA considers Kant to have been incorrect about its usefulness, and has no problem trying to disuade random people on the internet that there is no God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Doesn't really matter whether it's a regulative idea or constitutively real when people act on it either way.

It make a lot of difference. Can you see the difference from the above.

"A God that is claimed as constitutively real .. This is why this realness give believers the confidence to sacrifice their earthly life as a martyr and as permitted by God, kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion."

Those who recognize God as an illusion regulatively, do not accept a real God that is giving them commands to act. They would merely call out 'God' to relieve their existential pains whenever it is triggered. Kant used the illusory God regulatively for his moral project.

A parent would accept Santa regulatively as an illusory being with potential $pending$ while his kids would believe in a real Santa from the North Constitutively, giving him real toys.

Some scientists accept the "unknowable noumenon" as an impossible-to-be-realized ideal regulatively which would guide them to greater verifiable discovery. This is merely a thought and not something constitutively real substantially that can be confirmed as real eventually.

So Kant thought that no one should follow his moral philosophy, behave accordingly? Then why did he brother writing it?

Whilst Kant relied on a illusory God, his actual moral model is very likely to be tenable in the future when we have the relevant resources given the trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

In Geometry, there is the concept of the illusory perfect circle, square, triangle and other polygon which are impossible to be real in the world.
Whilst they are only thought and exists in mind [as noumenon] they act as guides to generate real circles, squares, triangles which are as near as possible to the impossible to achieve perfect shapes but nevertheless has very critical practical use.

[Iwannaplato]

It make a lot of difference. Can you see the difference from the above.

"A God that is claimed as constitutively real .. This is why this realness give believers the confidence to sacrifice their earthly life as a martyr and as permitted by God, kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion."

Those who recognize God as an illusion regulatively, do not accept a real God that is giving them commands to act. They would merely call out 'God' to relieve their existential pains whenever it is triggered. Kant used the illusory God regulatively for his moral project.

A parent would accept Santa regulatively as an illusory being with potential $pending$ while his kids would believe in a real Santa from the North Constitutively, giving him real toys.

Some scientists accept the "unknowable noumenon" as an impossible-to-be-realized ideal regulatively which would guide them to greater verifiable discovery. This is merely a thought and not something constitutively real substantially that can be confirmed as real eventually.

So Kant thought that no one should follow his moral philosophy, behave accordingly? Then why did he brother writing it?

Whilst Kant relied on a illusory God, his actual moral model is very likely to be tenable in the future when we have the relevant resources given the trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

In Geometry, there is the concept of the illusory perfect circle, square, triangle and other polygon which are impossible to be real in the world.
Whilst they are only thought and exists in mind [as noumenon] they act as guides to generate real circles, squares, triangles which are as near as possible to the impossible to achieve perfect shapes but nevertheless has very critical practical use.

But Kant according to you considered God to be a necessary illusion, not a possibly existent noumenon we cannot know about. That is your position. Fine, then why, contra-Kant, do you argue online that there is no God. You are attempting to take away, now, an illusion Kant considered necessary for people to be moral.

Now I know you think we can do something different in the future, but right now your utopian plans are not in place. Why are you going against Kant here?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So Kant thought that no one should follow his moral philosophy, behave accordingly? Then why did he brother writing it?

Whilst Kant relied on a illusory God, his actual moral model is very likely to be tenable in the future when we have the relevant resources given the trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

In Geometry, there is the concept of the illusory perfect circle, square, triangle and other polygon which are impossible to be real in the world.
Whilst they are only thought and exists in mind [as noumenon] they act as guides to generate real circles, squares, triangles which are as near as possible to the impossible to achieve perfect shapes but nevertheless has very critical practical use.

But Kant according to you considered God to be a necessary illusion, not a possibly existent noumenon we cannot know about. That is your position. Fine, then why, contra-Kant, do you argue online that there is no God. You are attempting to take away, now, an illusion Kant considered necessary for people to be moral.

Now I know you think we can do something different in the future, but right now your utopian plans are not in place. Why are you going against Kant here?

It is a very long story on Kant and his morality in relation to 'God' and Freedom.
I agree with Kant's moral model for the good of the future but it can be done without using the term 'God' as an illusion.
We could use the alternative term, "ens realissimum" without any elements of divinity.
The term 'God' has a lot of negative baggage with it.

I am disagreeing with Kant on the 'word' but not its essence and as an illusion.
God was reprimanded by the King then for criticizing religions and the personal God where his tenure was at risk, so he could have used the term 'God' to please the authorities then. Kant was likely a closet-atheist where as atheist then, could even get one to be killed but it is definitely a career-killer.

[Atla]

I am disagreeing with Kant on

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am disagreeing with Kant on

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I am still waiting for you to ask your 'ChatGpt' why the counter provided by my ChatGpt is different on the same issue.

[Atla]

I am disagreeing with Kant on

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I am still waiting for you to ask your 'ChatGpt' why the counter provided by my ChatGpt is different on the same issue.

ChatGPT clearly told you why, about 20 times: it's not "different", it's from a different perspective.

You can fail to grasp it for the 21th time here: viewtopic.php?p=744605#p744605

[Iwannaplato]

It is a very long story on Kant and his morality in relation to 'God' and Freedom.
I agree with Kant's moral model for the good of the future but it can be done without using the term 'God' as an illusion.
We could use the alternative term, "ens realissimum" without any elements of divinity.
The term 'God' has a lot of negative baggage with it.

I am disagreeing with Kant on the 'word' but not its essence and as an illusion.
God was reprimanded by the King then for criticizing religions and the personal God where his tenure was at risk, so he could have used the term 'God' to please the authorities then. Kant was likely a closet-atheist where as atheist then, could even get one to be killed but it is definitely a career-killer.

So, you disagree with the CPR, but think you know what he was really thinking, so you don't disagree with Kant.

Further, you are not, in forums like this one, convincing people to you ens realissimum as you gently wean them off the word God. You have long simply advocated for the non-existence of God. You've been part of the stripping of what you consider to be an illusion, one that Kant considered necessary or at least his texts did. I won't claim to know what he 'really' thought privately. But I acknowledge the appeal of having a hero and making psychic claims so that one is not contradicting the hero's beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is a very long story on Kant and his morality in relation to 'God' and Freedom.
I agree with Kant's moral model for the good of the future but it can be done without using the term 'God' as an illusion.
We could use the alternative term, "ens realissimum" without any elements of divinity.
The term 'God' has a lot of negative baggage with it.

I am disagreeing with Kant on the 'word' but not its essence and as an illusion.
God was reprimanded by the King then for criticizing religions and the personal God where his tenure was at risk, so he could have used the term 'God' to please the authorities then. Kant was likely a closet-atheist where as atheist then, could even get one to be killed but it is definitely a career-killer.

So, you disagree with the CPR, but think you know what he was really thinking, so you don't disagree with Kant.

What are your talking about? Where did I say the above?
I did not disagree with the main theme of the CPR.
I only disagree with Kant's use of the term 'God' of which I think can be replaced with the term 'Ens Realissimum'.

Kant believed in an intellectual and reasoned God as a deist; there is no issue with that. Kant did not believe in a personal God that commands its believers to kill non-believers. Rather, Kant believed in a reasoned-God that promote perpetual peace.

Further, you are not, in forums like this one, convincing people to you ens realissimum as you gently wean them off the word God. You have long simply advocated for the non-existence of God. You've been part of the stripping of what you consider to be an illusion, one that Kant considered necessary or at least his texts did. I won't claim to know what he 'really' thought privately. But I acknowledge the appeal of having a hero and making psychic claims so that one is not contradicting the hero's beliefs.

Sure, I deny the existence of God as real.
But I have never stopped theists from believing in an illusory God; I believe this is a useful illusion which is critical for the majority in their present psychological state.
I don't believe in Santa as real like most children, but I still go along with it, i.e. do not suggest 'Santa' should be banned.

[Iwannaplato]

It is a very long story on Kant and his morality in relation to 'God' and Freedom.
I agree with Kant's moral model for the good of the future but it can be done without using the term 'God' as an illusion.
We could use the alternative term, "ens realissimum" without any elements of divinity.
The term 'God' has a lot of negative baggage with it.

I am disagreeing with Kant on the 'word' but not its essence and as an illusion.
God was reprimanded by the King then for criticizing religions and the personal God where his tenure was at risk, so he could have used the term 'God' to please the authorities then. Kant was likely a closet-atheist where as atheist then, could even get one to be killed but it is definitely a career-killer.

So, you disagree with the CPR, but think you know what he was really thinking, so you don't disagree with Kant.

What are your talking about? Where did I say the above?
I did not disagree with the main theme of the CPR.

What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about the main theme of the CPR. Talk about a strawman. I was talking about the issue I mentioned in that post and the previous posts in our exchange related to the necessary illusion of God.

Kant believed in an intellectual and reasoned God as a deist;

as a deist? Kant was not a deist. His beliefs had some similarities with deism, but he was not a deist and there are significant differences with their beliefs.

there is no issue with that. Kant did not believe in a personal God that commands its believers to kill non-believers.

Huh. This isn't formally a strawman, but it's random. I certainly never said anything like that. And one can be a theist of many kinds and not believe that, so it is utterly irrelevant.

Sure, I deny the existence of God as real.
But I have never stopped theists from believing in an illusory God;

Implicit strawman. I never said you stopped them, but you have argued against the existence of God. Presumably you would hope your assertions and arguments are effective.

I believe this is a useful illusion which is critical for the majority in their present psychological state.
I don't believe in Santa as real like most children, but I still go along with it, i.e. do not suggest 'Santa' should be banned.

Implicit strawman. Who said you said belief in God should be banned? Not me anyway

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant believed in an intellectual and reasoned God as a deist;

as a deist? Kant was not a deist. His beliefs had some similarities with deism, but he was not a deist and there are significant differences with their beliefs.

There are many theists who claim Kant is a theist thus closer the Abrahamic God.

Kant wrote:

However, since no one ought to be accused of denying what he only does not venture to assert, it is less harsh and more just to say that
the Deist believes in a God [on cause only],
the Theist in a living God (summa intelligentia) [author]. B661

a theist is generally one who believe is a living God as a personal God who created the world and promised eternal life in heaven.

On the other hand, Kant's God is a reasoned-God and nothing personal thus more aligned with deism.

More simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God—often, but not necessarily, an impersonal and incomprehensible God who does not intervene in the universe after creating it,[8][12] solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism