ChatGpt wrote:
So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism.
He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.
And that is still agnosticism. So, Chatgpt's formulation here is confused. That's a typical agnostic stance, that one cannot determine if, for example, God exists or not.
Your position on noumena is 'atheistic' and the postive formulation of atheism, which is that there is no God or in this case noumena.
You are going beyond Kant's agnosticism
Atla is correct on this issue and Chatgpt has weighed in on his side of the issue even in that quote.
Kant according to Chatgpt disagrees with you.
we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence
And you clearly do the latter.
It would be such a lovely thing if you could manage to concede something like this, something that does not mean realism is correct or that morals can't be objective or any other key point in your system.
But unfortunately one expects that you will continue to defend this point about a point without managing to concede something that is not central. You can of course disagree with Kant and yet be correct about the main points of your position. He need not be treated as the Bible is treated by some.
And you can also drop the, if you disagree with me you need to prove your position is correct. You both could have terrible arguments.
And I do suggest you drop all this talk about proving. Proving is for math and symbolic logic. For many things we rely on strong justification. You know, like in science, where proofs are generally not on the table.