seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:43 pm
My, my, my, isn’t it interesting that it is okay for you to reference Wikipedia to support your point, but when I do it, you respond with this:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:11 am
When the hell is Wikipedia a final authority? Where is your intellectual integrity on this. Do you even know how Wikipedia works?
And please (for your own sake), don’t reply with some kind of lame justification as to how your use of Wiki is different than my use of Wiki, for it will only make your little display of hypocrisy all the more noticeable.
I did not refer to Wiki as final authority merely a lead or guide but never as a final authority. If you insist then we will go into Plato's work directly or at least to those with greater authority on Plato agreed by both of us.
That you use large
font in bold is indication you are using wiki as some sort of high authority or final authority.
Otherwise you should have referred to Kant's Critique of Reason directly rather than from secondary sources without the consensus of both of us.
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:20 pm
However, as I pointed out in your thread where you initiated this “God is impossible to be real” campaign,...
...I suggest that the main psychological impetus that drives humans to believe in the existence of a God (and thus, create those illusions) is based on the absolute absurdity in thinking that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance.
Therefore, the ultimate source of the fundamental belief in something extremely intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe, is nothing more than a simple default to plain old common sense.
Furthermore, if we consider the possibility that a Berkeleyan form of idealism or, perhaps, Panentheism
might be true, then the entire universe (which includes our bodies and brains) is formed from the living fabric of God’s very being.
In which case, it is conceivable that many humans can intuitively sense the presence of the divine within everything – hence another possible form of impetus that could drive humans toward the God hypothesis.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:34 am
You can hypothesize God as above, but such a God is not possible to be real at all. Note the argument;
- 1. What is real is confined to sensibility + understanding.
2. God is an transcendental idea [from Reason] that is beyond sensibility + understanding.
3. Therefore God is impossible to be real.
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:20 pm
The only thing that is more foolish than your obsessive clinging to (or acceptance of) such an extremely narrow interpretation of the meaning of the word “real”,...
...is me, as I continue to argue with someone who operates with the type of reasoning power and logic that one would expect to encounter when dealing with, for example, a “flat-earther.”
I have defined what is meant by the meaning 'real.'
You tell me what more real than what I have defined as real.
It’s good that you have a hobby (Kantian philosophy); however, your obvious emotional investment in your interpretation of Kant’s ideas has not only caused you to worship Kant as some kind of infallible personal guru,...
...but has also caused you to hermetically seal yourself within a “belief bubble” that is completely impenetrable to any logical criticisms or alternative possibilities.
I am a veteran to philosophy forums. When I first started I was bashed left, right and center by those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument. I have learned my mistake and had taken steps to cover them to ensure there are no holes in my argument. I am not perfect so there is still room for improvements.
As I had stated the only 'currency' in this forum is justified arguments with evidences.
So far I have done that.
If you think I am wrong, then provided justified counters.
You seem to be a good person, Veritas, as in someone who is driven by the best of intentions (e.g., to steer humanity away from mythological nonsense in order to help eliminate religion-based violence - a goal of which I am completely on-board with).
However, your severe (to the point of seeming pathological) fanaticism with respect to Kant, is off-putting and a detriment to your cause.
Hey! this OP is about Kant, thus I should and obligated to approach Kant in the most professional and philosophical manner.
I am a great fan of Kant on the basis of his argument but I am not dogmatic with Kant and I do not agree with Kant totally.
Whatever the OP and subject I will always try to put my best foot forward, in this case which happen to be Kant which I had researched deeply.
I would do the same with Islam and others which I had specialized in.
And lastly (and ironically), it is you who seems to be affected by an “existential crisis.”
I agree, I as with all humans are DNA-wise
infected with an inherent and unavoidable 'existential crisis.' The existential crisis drive is more primal than the sex, hunger, security, and other basic instincts. The instinct to exist, i.e. survive is the most primordial and fundamental.
The nature of the existential crisis [its full neural algorithm] is to direct the human attention to mainly external threats [& others] thus it has no provision to learn to know about itself or direct attention to itself. In fact, the existential crisis domain put up a very strong barrier to prevent humans from knowing about its truths.
The existential crisis faculty is like a zombie-parasite that control the self for its programmed 'purpose'.
But I am not that affected by the 'existential crisis/dilemma' as the majority because I have taken the trouble to develop skills of impulse control to modulate it. However being human, I cannot be certain my impulse control on the existential crisis will hold when I grow older, but I am doing my best to maintain the necessary skills to modulate the impulses of the very subliminal existential crisis.
I suggest you do more research on this existential crisis instead of dismissing what is really going inside your brain/mind.
It is a crisis that is brought-on by your own personal choice of becoming a hardcore atheist, of which you are now required to use intellectualism (and especially Kantian intellectualism) as a “psychological crutch” to support and defend that decision.
Indeed, Kantian intellectualism...
(regardless of it being an accurate reflection of the truth of reality or not)
...is not only something that you rely on as a crutch to help support your atheism, but also as a bullying bludgeon to beat away any and all challenges that might disrupt the psychological comfort and safety of the interior of, again, your personal little “bubble” of anti-theistic beliefs.
_______
I disagree with tying me with the label [a]theism.
I am
not-a-theist.
Note scientific knowledge starts with experiences & observations and with abduction form hypothesis to be tested for confirmation of its truth [qualified].
This is what I have been doing with the glaring and evident acts of terrible evil and violence committed by humans since man first appear and now happening all over the world.
These terrible evil and violent acts comprise of a range of categories which can be divided into secular and religious-based.
As limited person I cannot deal with all types of evil and violence, so I specialize on the one category, i.e. religious-based evil and violent acts.
From research I noted the majority of religious-based evil are from the theistic-religions.
Theistic religions are grounded on God as real who commanded theists to war against and kill non-believers.
Thus the most effective solution is to deal the ground of theistic religions, i.e. God.
Theists insist their God is real and give real commands to them to act where the consequences is evil and violence on humanity.
If God is proven to be an impossibility to be real, then we have nullify the ground for all theistic based evil and violence.
Thus I have ventured to prove God is an impossibility to be real.
My proof is not solely based on Kant's philosophy but include a whole range of knowledge. Kant alluded to some sort of existential crisis but was totally ignorant of its details given the depth of knowledge-base then in the 1700s.
Why you are so uncomfortable [without sound justification] with my presentation is due to the
subliminal manifestation of the
existential crisis that trigger some sort of subliminal
defense mechanisms. You'll have to do research on these bolded elements.
Here are some leads, not final authority;
https://www.simplypsychology.org/defens ... nisms.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms] with no reference to the CPR or any of Kant's work. [note OP = Kant].
