Your fallacy is ... Appeal to logic.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 am Why not?
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.
Logic has no ability, power or authority to decide on such matters..
Here is an example of how to use double-negation with void constructively: https://rufflewind.com/2016-12-11/doubl ... limination
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:09 am Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we do not use our subjectively-based senses to access our memories (and similarly, our dreams) is simply demonstrating the veracity of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
...(and will no doubt continue to do so as they doggedly double down on their misinformed assertions ).
You are making no sense to me at all. The 'logic' is simple: we can't prove God, we can't find God, there is no reason to believe that God exists. But that doesn't mean that God can't exist.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 amWhy not?Atla wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:29 amYou can't 'merely' add that. Not being able to prove God's existence doesn't make God impossible to be real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am What I merely extended and added from Kant's Philosophy is 'God is an impossibility to be real' based on Kant's view, there is no way one can prove God existence.
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.
One of my point is,
no ontological theist would accept their God will end up kissing the ass of another God, thus, the ontological God must prevail.
But an ontological God logically cannot exists are real empirically and philosophically.
This argument will cover >80% of theists, e.g. the Abrahamic God has to be an ontological God as in the respective scripture.
This is sufficient to serve my purpose toward perpetual peace for humanity.
If a theist do not mind their God is inferior to another,
then bring the evidence to justify their God is real.
Doesn't make sense to me either.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:50 amWhere is your argument for that rejection?Atla wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:28 amThe optimal way is going back to making positive statements like the world exists. While "there are no 'things' with essences of their own" still holds.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:24 am
Your above is natural to higher common sense which is useful.
With the philosophy-proper the above higher common sense is not tenable at the finest level.
To be more complete;
This is reflected in the Buddhist tetralemma;
- 1. Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.
2. There is no 1.
to add;
- 1. p
2. non-p
3 both p and non-p
4. Neither p nor non-p
The normal mind just cannot accept the above, so the question is how to deal with the above "lemma" cognitive dissonance and still 'be'.
- 5. none of the above
Besides I reject such contradiction
You are applying common sense.
Note the Law of Non-Contradictio is applicable to 'same time, same sense'.
In the above case of the tetralemma, it involves the shift in perspective, i.e. sense appropriately.
- E.g. A diamond gem and a piece of charcoal are different, not the same.
But in a different perspective, i.e. in term of atoms, they are the same, i.e. C - Carbon.
The "law" of non-contradiction is not a real law. It's an axiom of language. it's a s not a limit imposed on you by the universe. It's self-inflicted.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:50 am Note the Law of Non-Contradictio is applicable to 'same time, same sense'.
Indeed! If the things they say about God are true, I wouldn't put it past God to be a dick about it.
How dare you quote Feynman, you scurrilous scobberlotcher.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:25 am If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman
That is not true. In fact, I have to point out your intellectual dishonesty on the matter.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:27 am 2) Since you reject the idea that there are categories, you cannot possibly allow the category of "problem", or "memory." This makes undermines everything you say and it would be a waste of time responding, because you seem to make free the right to criticise me for using categories, but seem unable to accept that you are using your own.
In your above view you are merely analyzing the meaning of each word in relation to humans understanding but not interpreting the noumenon in the context of the related chapter and the whole CPR which is one long argument.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:39 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:25 am Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly and has understood it correctly and fully?
I don't think have from what you are insisting.
Note I quoted this [fact of the CPR] where the 'noumenon' is not something positive,
If the noumenon is merely a limiting concept, how can it be a thing as it-is-truly-is?
- The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
CPR - B311
viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744
You misunderstand the quote. When is is limiting. It is limiting as a concept, . Since humans are not fully able to access the noumenal world, we are limited in our understanding of it.
You stated the noumenon is 'stuff' which mean something positive, i.e. a real object.Where are your "facts"?
Show me where in the CPR did Kant state the noumenon is 'stuff' [positive thing] and
and the things "Ding an sich" [thing-in-itself], is something positive.
What do you mean "positive". I never used the word!
.
According to Popper (I agree) scientific theories are merely polished conjectures [or hypothesis]. You can't dispute this!Atla wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:40 pmDoesn't make sense to me either.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:50 am
Where is your argument for that rejection?
You are applying common sense.
Note the Law of Non-Contradiction is applicable to 'same time, same sense'.
In the above case of the tetralemma, it involves the shift in perspective, i.e. sense appropriately.
- E.g. A diamond gem and a piece of charcoal are different, not the same.
But in a different perspective, i.e. in term of atoms, they are the same, i.e. C - Carbon.
To do some sensible philosophy, we need the objective/absolute perspective and relative perspectives.
But you seem to have no objective/absolute perspective, you just seem to be randomly jumping between relative perspectives and they are even rather disconnected. So essentially you just make up what you want.
Science has been so extremely successful because the known universe DOES work like clockwork, so it's compatible with the ideal of the objective perspective.
Why no sense?Atla wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:37 pmYou are making no sense to me at all. The 'logic' is simple: we can't prove God, we can't find God, there is no reason to believe that God exists. But that doesn't mean that God can't exist.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 amWhy not?
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.
One of my point is,
no ontological theist would accept their God will end up kissing the ass of another God, thus, the ontological God must prevail.
But an ontological God logically cannot exists are real empirically and philosophically.
This argument will cover >80% of theists, e.g. the Abrahamic God has to be an ontological God as in the respective scripture.
This is sufficient to serve my purpose toward perpetual peace for humanity.
If a theist do not mind their God is inferior to another,
then bring the evidence to justify their God is real.
Even if by God you just mean the "Abrahamic Gods" (which totally wasn't obvious so far), we can't be sure that for example Allah isn't the one real god.
What cognitive dissonance? There are no observable things completely independent of human observation, obviously. But the appearance of a table IS usually and probably based on a table 'out there'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:00 am Kant however did show there an empirical table but there is NO table-in-itself as reality, other than it is an illusion driven by the subjects' psychology.
You are struggling with your own psychology [cognitive dissonance] on this issue which insist there is an absolutely absolute reality when there is none at all.
Why are you projecting psychology and empirical possibilities onto the unknown? Maybe things work by magic (whatever that means), God just made our universe very structured and orderly.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:09 amWhy no sense?Atla wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:37 pmYou are making no sense to me at all. The 'logic' is simple: we can't prove God, we can't find God, there is no reason to believe that God exists. But that doesn't mean that God can't exist.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 am
Why not?
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.
One of my point is,
no ontological theist would accept their God will end up kissing the ass of another God, thus, the ontological God must prevail.
But an ontological God logically cannot exists are real empirically and philosophically.
This argument will cover >80% of theists, e.g. the Abrahamic God has to be an ontological God as in the respective scripture.
This is sufficient to serve my purpose toward perpetual peace for humanity.
If a theist do not mind their God is inferior to another,
then bring the evidence to justify their God is real.
Even if by God you just mean the "Abrahamic Gods" (which totally wasn't obvious so far), we can't be sure that for example Allah isn't the one real god.
How can you prove,
"But that doesn't mean that God can't exist."
Will you insist a square-circle exists as real?
Surely you will answer, No!
This is the same logic I am arguing 'God' is an impossibility to be real. In addition I have brought in psychology to support my point.
What you have totally neglected is your own mind [the critical black box] and how it behaves within?
Re God I meant all types of God up to the ultimate ontological God.
I argue the full range of God [as defined] is impossible to be real except [with provision of 0.000--0001%] if one claims one's God has an empirical possibility.
For example, if a theist claims his/her god is a bearded man, tea pot, dog, monkey in the sky [or all other empirical elements], I cannot reject it as impossible because the variables in this case are all empirically possible. There cannot be 100% certainty with the empirical, but for whatever the empirical claim, one will have to bring the empirical evidence to prove one's claims before one can claim it is true.
Even with this empirical possibility, the possibility of a bearded man in the sky is likely to be be proven as real is 0.00000---0001%. This is as good as impossible.
What is critical to me is the Abrahamic God which ultimately in the ontological God.
Despite P4 is sarcasm? Your above argument is groundless and fallacious.