Man this thread must be incredibly boring to the lurkers and forum members. Oh well.
seeds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:05 pm ...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 key syllogisms...
...then your whole theory regarding the “impossibility of God being real” falls apart.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am 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
Veritas, here’s the situation:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:23 am As I had stated you are interpreting each statement above too literally and not taking them in the context of the whole of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Especially re Kant, your approach above shown you lack intellectual integrity and is insulting your own intelligence.
You and I (and Atla, to some extent) have been quibbling over Kant’s definition of the “thing-in-itself” as set-forth in the following quote:
However, this is no longer an issue of you disagreeing with a few of us knuckleheads on an obscure philosophy forum. No, this is now an issue of you disagreeing with Wikipedia.Kant wrote: ...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.
Because, again, according to the Wiki interpretation of that very same quote:
...Kant...Wiki wrote: ...he...
In other words, according to Wiki, Kant is saying:Wiki wrote: ...regards things-in-themselves as existing...
...the thing-in-itself is real.
However, based on your 3 whole years of personal study by which you have acquired an unprecedented understanding of Kant’s philosophy, you insist that Kant has asserted that:
So the question is - what are you going to do to correct the egregious error that Wikipedia is presenting to the world?
_______