Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:49 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:19 am
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.

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:49 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:29 am

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?

• 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

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:08 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:49 am
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.

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:08 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:01 am

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 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:28 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:08 am
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].

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:28 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:17 am
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 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:45 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:28 am
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 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:45 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:41 am

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 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:23 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:45 am
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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:23 am 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.

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:23 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:48 am

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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:23 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:23 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:23 am
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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:23 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:08 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:49 am
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.

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:23 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:37 am

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:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:08 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:01 am

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?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:37 am

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:23 am
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:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 6:08 am
Yes, according to Kant.

What made you change your mind so fast?

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