Philosophy Now Forum

So where or what does God or God(s) look like? To slightly paraphrase something I have posted in an alternate thread... My own personal visualization of what God might look like can be explained in the following thought experiment: Close your eyes and create a giant mirror before the eye of your mi...

Things are either logically possible or impossible. God could not create the universe if it was logically impossible. Something which is logically possible could exist without a need for a creator because it is possible. The universe, however, cannot be eternal so nothing is necessary state of affa...

_______ (Continued from prior post) I disagree with tying me with the label [a]theism. I am not-a-theist . Veritas, you can rest assured that statements such as that will guarantee you a steady supply of those left, right, and center bashings you are familiar with. I mean, how silly it was of me to ...

_______ (Continued from prior post) A noumenal aka thing-in-itself resides ultimately in absolute nothingness,... Due to the fact that you continue to demonstrate that you still don’t understand what Kant was saying in the quote we were arguing over, I’m going to copy and paste my earlier interpreta...

I have defined what is meant by the meaning 'real.' You tell me what more real than what I have defined as real. As I have (speculatively) suggested in an alternate thread: anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is “real” in some context or another (be it objective, subj...

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left,... No, Veritas, you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness. In other words, there’s a big difference b...

_______ (Continued from prior post) 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. It is of no use to provide any justified counters to your arguments because you either refu...

_______ (Continued from prior post) 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 ...

_______ (Continued from prior post) 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 log...

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: When the hell is Wikipedia a final authority? Where is your intellectual integrity on this. Do you even know how Wikipedia works? I did not refer to Wiki a...

I stated clearly, the idea of God cannot arise within Sensibility at all. The idea of God arise out of an illusion and is a trick of the mind. In a way you are correct, Veritas, human “ideas” (visualizations, concepts) of God are most certainly illusions. You got the wrong sense of the term 'idea' ...

[... ...] I stated clearly, the idea of God cannot arise within Sensibility at all. The idea of God arise out of an illusion and is a trick of the mind. In a way you are correct, Veritas, human “ideas” (visualizations, concepts) of God are most certainly illusions. However, as I pointed out in your...

_______ Man this thread must be incredibly boring to the lurkers and forum members. Oh well. :D ...Again, Veritas, I am sorry, but there’s just no getting around the fact that if everyone (and their grandmother) is countering and debunking the very first line (the anchoring premise) of one of your k...

Finally, we now have a clear demonstration of how you manage to twist Kant’s words to fit your agenda. Note how you completely changed the meaning of Kant’s assertion by insisting that we can “only think” of the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” thus making them appear to be ...

_______ (Continued from prior post) [... ...] What you presented is way off from Kant's thesis. The best you can do to support your point is to refer to the CPR in totality not mere cherry picking. But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these O...