Morality: The Big Bang is not Mind-Independent

[seeds]

Point is, for Kant,

• 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
  2. God is the thing-in-itself
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real

...which is pure horse crap, because Kant never insisted that the "thing-in-itself" is impossible to be real.

Indeed, quite the contrary, for he obviously felt that it would be "...absurd..." to conclude that "appearances" (phenomena) do not possibly have some form of deeper existence...

(of which he referred to as "noumena")

...that abides independent of our minds and senses, and stands as the real (yet hidden/inaccessible) foundation of phenomenal reality...

(like the informationally-based quantum realm, for example)

...from which "appearances" emerge.

You do not dare accept the truth regarding your misunderstanding of Kant because it will no doubt trigger "cognitive dissonances" that will result in an "existential crisis" that will produce the same sort of "withdrawal shivers" that you once suggested would happen to me if I gave up my belief in a Berkeleyan form of Panentheism.
_______

Show me references from the CPR where Kant asserted the thing-in-itself is real in the empirical-rational sense?

I'm the one who has asserted that the "thing-in-itself" (the noumenon) is real, not Kant.

I really loathe the type of deviousness you are displaying in that response.

Because if you actually made the effort to try and understand what I wrote then you would know - good and well - that I never said anything about Kant asserting that the "thing-in-itself" (the noumenon) is empirically real.

No, I instead tried to make it clear that because he went so far as to proclaim that if we presumed that the "thing-in-itself" wasn't real in some way, then we would be...

"...landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."

...which clearly suggests that he was open to the possibility of a noumenon (the "thing-in-itself") being "real" in some way that was simply beyond the range of our normal way of sensing the phenomenal "appearance" of said noumenon.

Yet, with all of that in mind, you still have the gall to formulate the following syllogism...

Point is, for Kant,

• 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
  2. God is the thing-in-itself
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real

...in such a way that falsely implies that Kant had clearly and unambiguously stated your initial premise.

Anyway, the fact that you insinuated that I asserted something that I most assuredly did not assert, proves that you are an unscrupulous debater who cannot be trusted.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

By the way, noumena truly do exist.

Indeed, I have provided what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon, several times in other threads, in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...



...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is obviously "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

_______

If you are referring to the double-slit experiment,...

Actually, I was referring to your wife's favorite pair of tight-fitting bloomers,...



...but, okay, let's go with the Double Slit Experiment.

Yeah, yeah, I realize that that was an embarrassingly juvenile attempt at humor, especially when considering the fact that there's no way a guy like you would even have a wife (am I right?)...

...(I'll be here all week folks. Please try the veal, and don't forget to tip the waitresses).

Anyway, you were saying...

If you are referring to the double-slit experiment, that is conditioned upon a human-based science-physics FSK.
Since it is human-based, it FOLLOWs, whatever the conclusion and its reality cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

As Kant stated, to realize the noumenal as real, an intelligible-intuition is needed, but humans do not possess such an intelligible-intuition; humans only possess a sensible-intuition.

Perhaps if back in the 1780s, Kant had known everything we know today about the quantum realm, then maybe - maybe - he would have agreed with my suggestion of how the literally "unknowable" status of a superpositioned electron - residing in the interim space of the Double Slit Experiment - seems to offer a visualizable example of a "real" noumenon.

The point is that just because your own level of so-called "intelligible intuition" about noumena is stuck back in the 18th century with Kant, doesn't mean that those of us who have immersed ourselves in the new metaphysics arising out of the discoveries in quantum mechanics, are stuck there with you.

In other words, 18th century (pre-quantum) "intuition" about the nature of reality might not be as sharp or as accurate as 21st century (post-quantum revolution) "intuition" about the nature of reality.

Anyway, regardless of the above speculation, nothing changes the fact that, through the years, you have proven yourself to be a shameless and untrustworthy debater who will not only twist the words of your opponents in the hope that no one will notice,...

...but also completely ignore the instances when your arguments have been thoroughly debunked.

However, we see you, little V,...



...we see you!

-------
(P.S., I'm still waiting for that drawing of a "square circle" that you insisted was achievable in the mind via thought.)
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

By the way, noumena truly do exist.

Indeed, I have provided what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon, several times in other threads, in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...



...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is obviously "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...


_______

If you are referring to the double-slit experiment,...

Actually, I was referring to your wife's favorite pair of tight-fitting bloomers,...



...but, okay, let's go with the Double Slit Experiment.

Yeah, yeah, I realize that that was an embarrassingly juvenile attempt at humor, especially when considering the fact that there's no way a guy like you would even have a wife (am I right?)...

...(I'll be here all week folks. Please try the veal, and don't forget to tip the waitresses).

Anyway, you were saying...

If you are referring to the double-slit experiment, that is conditioned upon a human-based science-physics FSK.
Since it is human-based, it FOLLOWs, whatever the conclusion and its reality cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

As Kant stated, to realize the noumenal as real, an intelligible-intuition is needed, but humans do not possess such an intelligible-intuition; humans only possess a sensible-intuition.

Perhaps if back in the 1780s, Kant had known everything we know today about the quantum realm, then maybe - maybe - he would have agreed with my suggestion of how the literally "unknowable" status of a superpositioned electron - residing in the interim space of the Double Slit Experiment - seems to offer a visualizable example of a "real" noumenon.

The point is that just because your own level of so-called "intelligible intuition" about noumena is stuck back in the 18th century with Kant, doesn't mean that those of us who have immersed ourselves in the new metaphysics arising out of the discoveries in quantum mechanics, are stuck there with you.

In other words, 18th century (pre-quantum) "intuition" about the nature of reality might not be as sharp or as accurate as 21st century (post-quantum revolution) "intuition" about the nature of reality.

Anyway, regardless of the above speculation, nothing changes the fact that, through the years, you have proven yourself to be a shameless and untrustworthy debater who will not only twist the words of your opponents in the hope that no one will notice,...

...but also completely ignore the instances when your arguments have been thoroughly debunked.

However, we see you, little V,...



...we see you!

-------
(P.S., I'm still waiting for that drawing of a "square circle" that you insisted was achievable in the mind via thought.)
_______

You are getting too emotional and personal as a defense mechanism to soothe your cognitive dissonances.
If you insist in this mode, F... OFF.