Is a Perfect Circle Real?

[Skepdick]

I have stated many times, I am an empirical realist where I believe everything 'out there' is real within empirical justifications.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's also known as "argument from ignorance".

[Atla]

Is using strawman your best argument?

I have stated many times, I am an empirical realist where I believe everything 'out there' is real within empirical justifications.

Frankly you are adopting the most idiotic philosophy where you assume there is something out there but it is unknowable.
It is impossible ever to know anything is fundamentally it is unknowable.
You are caught within Meno's paradox.

You are a solipsist pretending to be an empirical realist. LOL.

Besides according to you, 'you' are just an idea in my head anyway. 'You' are my idea of a solipsist pretending to be an empirical realist.

Ha-ha, what a funny way I've come up with to entertain myself today. I'll treat 'you' as real within 'empirical context', but we all know (I mean I and I know, I mean I know) that 'you' aren't actually real, wink wink.

Frankly you are adopting the most idiotic philosophy where you assume there is something out there but it is unknowable.

Are you calling Kant's philosophy the most idiotic philosophy? Kant wasn't actually a solipsist like you, you know.

It is impossible ever to know anything is fundamentally it is unknowable.

Not an English sentence. I expected better from 'you' I mean myself.

[Sculptor]

Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Wrong question.

Is a real circle perfect?

[Eodnhoj7]

Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Wrong question.

Is a real circle perfect?

Notice how not only the questions cycle through eachother but also the words cycle as well...a perfect circle can only be assumed as one cannot see it circumference as it would be the edge of reality itself.

This is no different than assuming one assumptions, which is a loop, but never seeing beyond it.

The perfect circle, is assumed both as a proposition and the propositions that propositions contain.

This doesn't make it any less real, rather more "real", as all knowledge is assumed... thus the perfect circle as assumed exists dynamically through assuming phenomenon and statically as an image in the respect the observer is an image or variation of this Divine Plan or Divine Reason.

[Eodnhoj7]

Re your first Wiki definition, I had pointed that definition has a quote that refer back to Kant.
So we should fall back on Kant as the authority instead of arguing over the secondary definition.

It is the same for the other definition you listed.

I gave you a list of like 10 definitons which all disagree with you. And those definitions are derived from Kant (you seem to even disagree with Kant and use Plato's meaning).
It's how we use English words today. You are on a philosophy forum so either adapt or fuck off.

What kind of nonsense is that?

I quoted from Kant;

• 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.
  B311

I suggested you read the whole chapter on 'Phenomena versus Noumena'.

The concept of a noumenon negates itself under it's own application through double negation.

The limit of a limit, necessitates a limit as not just circular but empty as well.

Example:

_________________________ Line A



Then observe that limit of this one line through line B

__________________________ Line B


And we get the limit as not just intrinsically empty but emptiness itself as line C:


__________________________ Line A
Line C
__________________________ Line B



Noumenon necessitates a paradox as through a double negation, where "the limit of a limit is no limit".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is using strawman your best argument?

I have stated many times, I am an empirical realist where I believe everything 'out there' is real within empirical justifications.

Frankly you are adopting the most idiotic philosophy where you assume there is something out there but it is unknowable.
It is impossible ever to know anything is fundamentally it is unknowable.
You are caught within Meno's paradox.

You are a solipsist pretending to be an empirical realist. LOL.

Besides according to you, 'you' are just an idea in my head anyway. 'You' are my idea of a solipsist pretending to be an empirical realist.

Ha-ha, what a funny way I've come up with to entertain myself today. I'll treat 'you' as real within 'empirical context', but we all know (I mean I and I know, I mean I know) that 'you' aren't actually real, wink wink.

Frankly you are adopting the most idiotic philosophy where you assume there is something out there but it is unknowable.

Are you calling Kant's philosophy the most idiotic philosophy? Kant wasn't actually a solipsist like you, you know.

It is impossible ever to know anything is fundamentally it is unknowable.

Not an English sentence. I expected better from 'you' I mean myself.

You seem to be getting more stupid as you run out of argument.

Rephrased.
"It is impossible ever to know anything if it is unknowable."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Wrong question.

Is a real circle perfect?

"Is a real circle perfect?" is the other way round and not effective for my purpose.
My point for the OP is to support my OP, the ontology God is impossible to be real.

The critical attribute of the ontological God is absolutely-absolute and perfection, example from Descartes;

• Descartes argued that God's existence can be deduced from his nature, just as geometric ideas can be deduced from the nature of shapes—he used the deduction of the sizes of angles in a triangle as an example.
  He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections.
  He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection. Thus, if the notion of God did not include existence, it would not be supremely perfect, as it would be lacking a perfection. Consequently, the notion of a supremely perfect God who does not exist, Descartes argues, is unintelligible. Therefore, according to his nature, God must exist.

Descartes deduced from nature [the empirical].
In the above Descartes used the term 'ideas' which is specifically in the philosophical and platonic sense.
In the above Descartes deduced from the idea of a perfect triangle.
I am using one example, i.e. perfect circle.

Now if a perfect circle, perfect triangle or perfect-whatever-empirical-thing is impossible to be real empirically,
then, it is impossible for a perfect God to be empirically-philosophically* real.

* i.e. using various philosophical tools.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I gave you a list of like 10 definitons which all disagree with you. And those definitions are derived from Kant (you seem to even disagree with Kant and use Plato's meaning).
It's how we use English words today. You are on a philosophy forum so either adapt or fuck off.

What kind of nonsense is that?

I quoted from Kant;

• 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.
  B311

I suggested you read the whole chapter on 'Phenomena versus Noumena'.

The concept of a noumenon negates itself under it's own application through double negation.

The limit of a limit, necessitates a limit as not just circular but empty as well.

Example:

_________________________ Line A



Then observe that limit of this one line through line B

__________________________ Line B


And we get the limit as not just intrinsically empty but emptiness itself as line C:


__________________________ Line A
Line C
__________________________ Line B



Noumenon necessitates a paradox as through a double negation, where "the limit of a limit is no limit".

In a way there is a double negation but that do no serve your point at all.

To Kant, the thing-in-itself is LIMIT-B.
The noumenon is a limit-A which is within LIMIT-B.
The noumenon is a sub-limit of LIMIT-B

Ultimately Kant demonstrated both limit-A and LIMIT-B are fundamentally transcendental illusions when one attempts to reify these limits.
Thus there is no real LIMIT-C as the ultimate emptiness.

It is obvious at this point you do not understand Kant fully.

[Atla]

Is using strawman your best argument?

I have stated many times, I am an empirical realist where I believe everything 'out there' is real within empirical justifications.

Frankly you are adopting the most idiotic philosophy where you assume there is something out there but it is unknowable.
It is impossible ever to know anything is fundamentally it is unknowable.
You are caught within Meno's paradox.

You are a solipsist pretending to be an empirical realist. LOL.

Besides according to you, 'you' are just an idea in my head anyway. 'You' are my idea of a solipsist pretending to be an empirical realist.

Ha-ha, what a funny way I've come up with to entertain myself today. I'll treat 'you' as real within 'empirical context', but we all know (I mean I and I know, I mean I know) that 'you' aren't actually real, wink wink.

Frankly you are adopting the most idiotic philosophy where you assume there is something out there but it is unknowable.

Are you calling Kant's philosophy the most idiotic philosophy? Kant wasn't actually a solipsist like you, you know.

It is impossible ever to know anything is fundamentally it is unknowable.

Not an English sentence. I expected better from 'you' I mean myself.

You seem to be getting more stupid as you run out of argument.

Rephrased.
"It is impossible ever to know anything if it is unknowable."

You're the one here who knows something (Gods are impossible to be real) which is unknowable.

Idiot much?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are a solipsist pretending to be an empirical realist. LOL.

Besides according to you, 'you' are just an idea in my head anyway. 'You' are my idea of a solipsist pretending to be an empirical realist.

Ha-ha, what a funny way I've come up with to entertain myself today. I'll treat 'you' as real within 'empirical context', but we all know (I mean I and I know, I mean I know) that 'you' aren't actually real, wink wink.


Are you calling Kant's philosophy the most idiotic philosophy? Kant wasn't actually a solipsist like you, you know.


Not an English sentence. I expected better from 'you' I mean myself.

You seem to be getting more stupid as you run out of argument.

Rephrased.
"It is impossible ever to know anything if it is unknowable."

You're the one here who knows something (Gods are impossible to be real) which is unknowable.

Idiot much?

You have run out of proper arguments, getting your knickers in a twist and going mad.

[Atla]

You seem to be getting more stupid as you run out of argument.

Rephrased.
"It is impossible ever to know anything if it is unknowable."

You're the one here who knows something (Gods are impossible to be real) which is unknowable.

Idiot much?

You have run out of proper arguments, getting your knickers in a twist and going mad.

I was just quoting you, your bullshit was exposed.
You think that Kant's philosophy is fundamentally just solipsism, and when pointed out that that's not the case, you call even Kant idiotic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You're the one here who knows something (Gods are impossible to be real) which is unknowable.

Idiot much?

You have run out of proper arguments, getting your knickers in a twist and going mad.

I was just quoting you, your bullshit was exposed.
You think that Kant's philosophy is fundamentally just solipsism, and when pointed out that that's not the case, you call even Kant idiotic.

Your imagined strawman again.
You are making yourself more and more stupid.

[Atla]

You have run out of proper arguments, getting your knickers in a twist and going mad.

I was just quoting you, your bullshit was exposed.
You think that Kant's philosophy is fundamentally just solipsism, and when pointed out that that's not the case, you call even Kant idiotic.

Your imagined strawman again.
You are making yourself more and more stupid.

Again I was quoting you.
How intellectually bankrupt are you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was just quoting you, your bullshit was exposed.
You think that Kant's philosophy is fundamentally just solipsism, and when pointed out that that's not the case, you call even Kant idiotic.

Your imagined strawman again.
You are making yourself more and more stupid.

Again I was quoting you.
How intellectually bankrupt are you?

Say what you want.
I will ignore them until I see proper justified arguments.

[Atla]

Your imagined strawman again.
You are making yourself more and more stupid.

Again I was quoting you.
How intellectually bankrupt are you?

Say what you want.
I will ignore them until I see proper justified arguments.

You literally called Kant's philosophy (where we assume that there is something out there but is unknowable) the most idiotic philosophy.
You want him so badly to be a worthless, mentally impaired solipsist, but he wasn't.