Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]

[Age]

the noumenal is more than naked turtles and homeless clams (other crustaceans aside)...

-Imp

I too believe that the noumena is more than empty concepts and so did Kant. From reading Kant, it is clear that he was a firm believer in Christianity and who also denied the Trinity and labeled the latter as "useless"[his words]. May I please ask you what you think about the noumena? You may or may not quote scriptures if you want. There are beautiful passages of the CPR that you will never find quoted on a philosophy forum!! Well, that's about to change, if God wills.

that's just it... that to which we have access are sensory impressions (the phenomena) ... is there something beyond the impressions? it isn't sensed ...

I am of the opinion that when something isn't in my direct perception, it doesn't exist as an appearance... does anything exist beyond appearances?

This would depend on what perspective, or sense, you are asking this from.

See, there can be, and ARE, 'things' existing, which ARE beyond what you are calling 'appearances' here. For example, when one comes to SEE what they had NOT PREVIOUSLY SEEN, but can NOW, but which "others" STILL can NOT SEE, then there ARE these 'things' existing beyond 'appearances' to SOME people. However because 'these things' can NOW be SEEN, by SOME, then 'those things' are NOT ACTUALLY beyond 'appearances' ULTIMATELY.

So, although there are 'things' that may 'currently' NOT be 'appearing', from one perspective or sense, they are, ACTUALLY, NOT beyond 'appearances' AT ALL, ULTIMATELY, from another perspective or sense

one would like to believe so... but belief isn't certainty...

-Imp

[Age]

that's just it... that to which we have access are sensory impressions (the phenomena) ... is there something beyond the impressions? it isn't sensed ...

That would imply that the noumena are "homeless clams" then, doesn't it?

"homeless clams" in a sense... more like the existence of my house when I am at work (as I don't work from home)...

I am of the opinion that when something isn't in my direct perception, it doesn't exist as an appearance... does anything exist beyond appearances? one would like to believe so... but belief isn't certainty...

-Imp

Well, the Second World War was not and could not have been in my direct perception as I was born after, so that would imply that it should not exist as an appearance for me! I could be prosecuted for even thinking that in many European countries such as Germany and France! Should I thus not be certain of WW2?

you can be somewhat certain of the stories and accounts of those that were there...

Will you list the different 'levels' of 'certainty'?

And if you do, then will you explain or elaborate on, EXACTLY, HOW they are 'different'?

For all I KNOW there could just be lots of people telling me LIES.

See, to me, there is only One 'thing' that I can be Certain of. EVERY 'thing' else I AM NOT.

if thousands of people witnessed and tell the same story, as confirmed by their contemporary accounts, photos and films, you may find it more believable- not necessarily as believable as currently sensed event- but you may place some faith in it... other stories, maybe not so much...

the stories of 4 people (who spoke in a dead language) which were translated into a dead language from another archaic language, retranslated and retranslated into something that is accepted as gospel...

certainty may not be where one finds it

-Imp

[Impenitent]

you can be somewhat certain of the stories and accounts of those that were there... if thousands of people witnessed and tell the same story, as confirmed by their contemporary accounts, photos and films, you may find it more believable- not necessarily as believable as currently sensed event- but you may place some faith in it... other stories, maybe not so much...

Please, correct me if I am getting you wrong. Are you saying that we cannot be as certain of the official version of the events of WW2 as one would be of direct perception; and that doubts about the official version will not be unreasonable to you for someone who did not witness those events directly?

yes- the "official" version of any un-sensed event is not as clear as the immediate perception of said event...

what do you mean it isn't the absolute truth? this deep fake shows it plainly... you will believe...

-Imp

(historical accounts of prisoners of war held by Germany? I saw Hogan's Heroes...)

[Averroes]

you can be somewhat certain of the stories and accounts of those that were there... if thousands of people witnessed and tell the same story, as confirmed by their contemporary accounts, photos and films, you may find it more believable- not necessarily as believable as currently sensed event- but you may place some faith in it... other stories, maybe not so much...

Please, correct me if I am getting you wrong. Are you saying that we cannot be as certain of the official version of the events of WW2 as one would be of direct perception; and that doubts about the official version will not be unreasonable to you for someone who did not witness those events directly?

yes- the "official" version of any un-sensed event is not as clear as the immediate perception of said event...

Thank you for confirming. It's all I wanted to know.

[Averroes]

the noumenal is more than naked turtles and homeless clams (other crustaceans aside)...

-Imp

I too believe that the noumena is more than empty concepts and so did Kant. From reading Kant, it is clear that he was a firm believer in Christianity and who also denied the Trinity and labeled the latter as "useless"[his words].
May I please ask you what you think about the noumena?
You may or may not quote scriptures if you want. There are beautiful passages of the CPR that you will never find quoted on a philosophy forum!! Well, that's about to change, if God wills.

Averroes, Happy Eid wishes to you.

Thank you Veritas Aequitas. You are the only person on all forums combined that wishes me Eid when you get the opportunity. This is the second time you wish me on this forum. The first time was pre-covid Eidul Adha. I wish the best guidance for you and all members of the forum everyday of my life.

Kant came from the Pietist tradition [a sort of fringe Christianity] which Kant subsequently abandoned and turned against religion, especially Christianity.

No doubt Kant abandoned mainstream Christianity. But so did Isaac Newton. But Isaac Newton was a firm believer in the Christian Bible and even an erudite in the Bible. The common thing about them is that they both rejected the Trinity. Newton rejected it on grounds that it is extra-biblical and goes against the very first and most important commandment of God the Almighty [i.e. Mark 12:29-31] in the Bible, and Kant on grounds that it is illogical and useless. So, that he deviated from mainstream Christianity was not really an issue, as mainstream Christianity itself seriously deviated (and still does) from its original message. That said though, I do believe that Kant's beliefs did seriously deviate from the original message of Christianity as well. Personally, I think that Kant was greatly struggling in his faith after he having read Hume. Hume was really devastating to the Christian faith in the West (whether mainstream or fringe), and Kant took it head on. He did what he could to salvage what he could but he was in the end all messed up. And the science of his time did not help him either. The latter point needs more explanation on Kant's writings, Newton mechanics and Einstein relativity. More on that later if God wills and if I have the time to dwell into the CPR again.

Struggling in the Christian faith is something that I can relate to as I personally experienced it. With so many contradictions in the Bible and the science that does not support the book, it's really tough. There comes a one point where one has to chose: real science and reason or the Christian faith. I barely managed to hold on to the faith until the Most Merciful had mercy on me and guided me to Islam as you already know.

Struggling in the Christian faith for someone who values reason and logic is the norm actually. In the Christian world it's like that: either reason and logic or the faith but not both! That tension slowly erodes the faith as most of the time in our day to day lives we have to deal with facts and be logical and reasonable. But in Islam, which was the original message of Jesus(peace be upon him), the situation is totally the opposite as logic and reason reinforces the faith instead of eroding it! Most of us here (including myself) even though we do not have the intellect of Kant and Newton, however, the struggle is something we have experienced. Some have temporarily abandoned all faith altogether and some barely hanging to it. One thing that kept me going when the going was getting really tough in Christianity was the story of Prophet Job (peace be upon him). He was the Prophet (pbuh) that occupied my mind most in those times. I greatly loved him and still do. And in the Holy Quran, God, the Almighty honours him with excellence:

• And remember Our servant Job, when he called to his Lord, "Indeed, Satan has touched me with hardship and torment."
  [So he was told], "Strike [the ground] with your foot; this is a [spring for] a cool bath and drink."
  And We granted him his family and a like [number] with them as mercy from Us and a reminder for those of understanding.
  [We said], "And take in your hand a bunch [of grass] and strike with it and do not break your oath." Indeed, We found him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was one repeatedly turning back [to Allah ]. [Saheeh International translation of Holy Quran 38:41-44]

As I said, I believe Kant was greatly struggling in the face of great adversity namely Hume. But I believe he was still hanging in there even if barely noticeable. You asked for quotes, alright. There is a very interesting passage in the CPR where he talks about the argument from design with great respect, and that is something that is significant. I will quote from the Meiklejohn translation freely available on the net if you don't mind as I cannot find the Allan Wood translation in pdf on my computer.

Kant wrote:

• This argument [the Design or physico-theological argument] always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common reason of humanity. It animates the study of nature, as it itself derives its existence and draws ever new strength from that source. It introduces aims and ends into a sphere in which our observation could not of itself have discovered them, and extends our knowledge of nature, by directing our attention to a unity, the principle of which lies beyond nature. This knowledge of nature again reacts upon this idea – its cause; and thus our belief in a divine author of the universe rises to the power of an irresistible conviction.
  
  For these reasons it would be utterly hopeless to attempt to rob this argument of the authority it has always enjoyed. The mind, unceasingly elevated by these considerations, which, although empirical, are so remarkably powerful, and continually adding to their force, will not suffer itself to be depressed by the doubts suggested by subtle speculation; it tears itself out of this state of uncertainty, the moment it casts a look upon the wondrous forms of nature and the majesty of the universe, and rises from height to height, from condition to condition, till it has elevated itself to the supreme and unconditioned author of all.

However, even if he treated the Design argument with great respect, he did object to it but his objection was mainly due to the science of his time and had he known of the future developments in science his mind may have been appeased or so I like to think. So, he further says:

• But although we have nothing to object to the reasonableness and utility of this procedure, but have rather to commend and encourage it, we cannot approve of the claims which this argument advances to demonstrative certainty and to a reception upon its own merits, apart from favour or support by other arguments. (...)

After going into some more struggles, he comes to the meaty part of his contention thus:

• According to the physico-theological argument, the connection and harmony existing in the world evidence the contingency of the form merely, but not of the matter, that is, of the substance of the world. To establish the truth of the latter opinion, it would be necessary to prove that all things would be in themselves incapable of this harmony and order, unless they were, even as regards their substance, the product of a supreme wisdom. But this would require very different grounds of proof from those presented by the analogy with human art. This proof can at most, therefore, demonstrate the existence of an architect of the world, whose efforts are limited by the capabilities of the material with which he works, but not of a creator of the world, to whom all things are subject. Thus this argument is utterly insufficient for the task before us – a demonstration of the existence of an all-sufficient being. If we wish to prove the contingency of matter, we must have recourse to a transcendental argument, which the physico-theological was constructed expressly to avoid. Reference

In his time, the science was that matter and energy were believed to be distinct. Thus, even though he acknowledged that the design argument can demonstrate to him the existence of an author of the world but, however, not an all-sufficient Creator as according to him that would lead to a contradiction given that he believed such a Creator would be limited by the matter being organised to form the world. Had he lived in the time of Einstein to witness the famous E=mc2, he would not have said that, as he would have understood that matter itself is energy as much as the kinetic energy [which he recognised] required to be imparted to organise the matter. And had he further witness the developments in science till today, he would have been blown away. Thus in the last quotation above, Kant got all his facts wrong and all his philosophy following that is thus wrong. Thus the Design argument now has passed all Kant's requirements and even surpassed it, namely the contingency of both form and matter is now well established in science. The Design argument, which he respected, would be now in his mind in no need of the other arguments as he claimed. Had he known that, intelligent as he was he would have been glad or so I like to believe.

In this case, the noumena in the positive sense is an illusion [impossible to be real] but it is nevertheless a useful illusion. This useful illusion is also finally attribute to GOD which is useful for salvation and for Kant, an illusory ground for morality.
If you think otherwise, show me the references from Kant in its full contexts within the CPR?

It is in the CPR but not the one you are quoting. It is in the Critique of Practical Reason, or the CPrR to distinguish from the former. Kant was rather inconsistent with that concept and that's not surprising to me, as to me this is yet another evidence that he was struggling in his beliefs. I think you can already see what I am referring to now, namely "freewill" as it is called. My argument on the matter is rather involved and will convince only those who already believe in the Will of God as the origin of the creation of the world, and ironically those are in no need of being convinced! I have already written much that I won't bore you with more walls of text for you to read, and besides you must already know how Kant views freewill in the later Critique. I will just quote the words of the Creator Himself to let you know where I am going with this and call it a day.

• His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, "Be," and it is. [Saheeh International translation of Holy Quran, 36:82]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Averroes, Happy Eid wishes to you.

Thank you Veritas Aequitas. You are the only person on all forums combined that wishes me Eid when you get the opportunity. This is the second time you wish me on this forum. The first time was pre-covid Eidul Adha. I wish the best guidance for you and all members of the forum everyday of my life.

I do not agree with Islam but all Muslims are humans who must be respected as such.

Kant came from the Pietist tradition [a sort of fringe Christianity] which Kant subsequently abandoned and turned against religion, especially Christianity.

No doubt Kant abandoned mainstream Christianity. But so did Isaac Newton. But Isaac Newton was a firm believer in the Christian Bible and even an erudite in the Bible. The common thing about them is that they both rejected the Trinity. Newton rejected it on grounds that it is extra-biblical and goes against the very first and most important commandment of God the Almighty [i.e. Mark 12:29-31] in the Bible, and Kant on grounds that it is illogical and useless. So, that he deviated from mainstream Christianity was not really an issue, as mainstream Christianity itself seriously deviated (and still does) from its original message. That said though, I do believe that Kant's beliefs did seriously deviate from the original message of Christianity as well.
Personally, I think that Kant was greatly struggling in his faith after he having read Hume. Hume was really devastating to the Christian faith in the West (whether mainstream or fringe), and Kant took it head on. He did what he could to salvage what he could but he was in the end all messed up. And the science of his time did not help him either. The latter point needs more explanation on Kant's writings, Newton mechanics and Einstein relativity. More on that later if God wills and if I have the time to dwell into the CPR again.

I have not read of Kant's main dispute with Christianity was a non-acceptance of the Trinity. - Any reference?

In CPR Kant stated,

• However, since no one ought to be accused of denying what he only does not venture to assert, it is less harsh and more just to say that
  the Deist believes in a God,
  the Theist in a living God (summa intelligentia). A633 B661

Kant condemned religion, thus he was definitely not a Christian which is based on a personal God.
Kant is often regarded as a Deist, but he was most likely a closet-atheist, given his time when theism was dominant. He was warned by the King not to discuss religion, else he risked his professorship.

As I said, I believe Kant was greatly struggling in the face of great adversity namely Hume. But I believe he was still hanging in there even if barely noticeable. You asked for quotes, alright. There is a very interesting passage in the CPR where he talks about the argument from design with great respect, and that is something that is significant. I will quote from the Meiklejohn translation freely available on the net if you don't mind as I cannot find the Allan Wood translation in pdf on my computer.

Kant wrote:

• This argument [the Design or physico-theological argument] always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common reason of humanity. ..... till it has elevated itself to the supreme and unconditioned author of all.

However, even if he treated the Design argument with great respect, he did object to it but his objection was mainly due to the science of his time and had he known of the future developments in science his mind may have been appeased or so I like to think. So, he further says:

• But although we have nothing to object to the reasonableness and utility of this procedure, but have rather to commend and encourage it, we cannot approve of the claims which this argument advances to demonstrative certainty and to a reception upon its own merits, apart from favour or support by other arguments. (...)

After going into some more struggles, he comes to the meaty part of his contention thus:

• According to the physico-theological argument, ..., which the physico-theological was constructed expressly to avoid. Reference

Kant has great respect for the physico-theological argument because the argument starts from nature, the empirical & nature and most importantly [as above quote];

• It introduces aims and ends into a sphere in which our observation could not of itself have discovered them, and extends our knowledge of nature, by directing our attention to a unity, the principle of which lies beyond nature. B651

But as you would have noted, to Kant, the physico-theological argument, is a useless argument to prove God's existence as real.

In his time, the science was that matter and energy were believed to be distinct. Thus, even though he acknowledged that the design argument can demonstrate to him the existence of an author of the world but, however, not an all-sufficient Creator as according to him that would lead to a contradiction given that he believed such a Creator would be limited by the matter being organised to form the world. Had he lived in the time of Einstein to witness the famous E=mc2, he would not have said that, as he would have understood that matter itself is energy as much as the kinetic energy [which he recognised] required to be imparted to organise the matter. And had he further witness the developments in science till today, he would have been blown away. Thus in the last quotation above, Kant got all his facts wrong and all his philosophy following that is thus wrong. Thus the Design argument now has passed all Kant's requirements and even surpassed it, namely the contingency of both form and matter is now well established in science. The Design argument, which he respected, would be now in his mind in no need of the other arguments as he claimed. Had he known that, intelligent as he was he would have been glad or so I like to believe.

To the contrary, if Kant is living at present, QM theories and the neurosciences based on the human-based FSKs would definitely have supported his Copernican Revolution and argument that God is impossible to be proven within reality.

In this case, the noumena in the positive sense is an illusion [impossible to be real] but it is nevertheless a useful illusion. This useful illusion is also finally attribute to GOD which is useful for salvation and for Kant, an illusory ground for morality.
If you think otherwise, show me the references from Kant in its full contexts within the CPR?

It is in the CPR but not the one you are quoting. It is in the Critique of Practical Reason, or the CPrR to distinguish from the former. Kant was rather inconsistent with that concept and that's not surprising to me, as to me this is yet another evidence that he was struggling in his beliefs. I think you can already see what I am referring to now, namely "freewill" as it is called. My argument on the matter is rather involved and will convince only those who already believe in the Will of God as the origin of the creation of the world, and ironically those are in no need of being convinced! I have already written much that I won't bore you with more walls of text for you to read, and besides you must already know how Kant views freewill in the later Critique. I will just quote the words of the Creator Himself to let you know where I am going with this and call it a day.

• His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, "Be," and it is. [Saheeh International translation of Holy Quran, 36:82]

Other than the final part re Doctrine of Method, Kant CPR was ONE long argument [thus logical and systematic] in arguing why God is illusory but [in his view -I do not agree] nevertheless a very useful illusion for Science [noumenon], Morality and personal salvation.
Instead of God, Kant could have referred to the non-theistic Ens Realissimum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Averroes, note this beginning part of the section re Kant's refutation of the physico-theological argument. Read it with a fine-toothed comb.

Section 6
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE PHYSICO-THEOLOGICAL PROOF

B648
If, then, neither a pure conception nor the general experience of an existing being can provide a sufficient basis for the proof of the existence of the Deity, we can make the attempt by the only other mode--that of grounding our argument upon a determinate experience of the phenomena of the present world, their constitution and disposition, and discover whether we can thus attain to a sound conviction of the existence of a Supreme Being.
This argument we shall term the physico-theological argument.
If it is shown to be insufficient, speculative reason cannot present us with any satisfactory proof of the existence of a being corresponding to our transcendental IDEA.

It is evident from the remarks that have been made in the preceding sections, that an answer to this question will be far from being difficult or unconvincing.
For how can any experience be adequate with an IDEA?
The very essence of an IDEA consists in the fact that no experience can ever be discovered congruent or adequate with it.

The transcendental IDEA of a necessary and all-sufficient being is so immeasurably great, so high above all that is empirical, which is always CONDITIONED, that we hope in vain to find materials in the sphere of experience sufficiently ample for our conception,
and in vain seek the UNCONDITIONED among things that are CONDITIONED, while examples, nay, even guidance is denied us by the laws of empirical synthesis.

IF the Supreme Being forms a link in the chain of empirical conditions, it must be a member of the empirical series, and, like the lower members which it precedes, have its origin in some higher member of the series. [leading to infinite regress]

IF, on the other hand, we disengage it from the chain, and cogitate it as an intelligible being, apart from the series of natural causes--HOW SHALL REASON BRIDGE THE ABYSS THAT SEPARATES THE LATTER FROM THE FORMER?
All laws respecting the REGRESS from effects to causes, all synthetical additions to our knowledge
relate solely to POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE and the OBJECTS OF THE SENSUOUS WORLD, and, apart from them, are without significance. [meaningless]

The world around us opens before our view so magnificent a spectacle of order, variety, beauty, and conformity to ends, that
whether we pursue our observations into the infinity of space in the one direction, or into its illimitable divisions in the other,
whether we regard the world in its greatest or its least manifestations
- even after we have attained to the highest summit of knowledge which our weak minds can reach,
we find that language in the presence of wonders so inconceivable has lost its force, and number its power to reckon, nay, EVEN THOUGHT FAILS TO CONCEIVE ADEQUATELY,
and our conception of the whole dissolves into an astonishment without power of expression--all the more eloquent that it is dumb. [meaningless] B651

Everywhere around us we observe a chain of causes and effects, of means and ends, of death and birth;
and, as nothing has entered of itself into the condition in which we find it,
we are constantly referred to some other thing, which itself suggests the same inquiry regarding its cause,
and thus the universe must sink into the abyss of nothingness,
UNLESS we admit [assume] that, besides this infinite chain of contingencies, there exists SOMETHING that is primal and self-subsistent-
-something which, as the cause of this phenomenal world, secures its continuance and preservation.

This highest cause--what magnitude shall we attribute to it?
Of the content of the world we are ignorant; still less can we estimate its magnitude by comparison with the sphere of the possible.
But this supreme cause being a necessity of the human mind, what is there to prevent us from attributing to it such a degree of perfection as to place it above the sphere of all that is possible?

This we can easily do, although only by the aid of the faint outline of an ABSTRACT CONCEPTION,
by representing this being to ourselves as containing in itself, as an individual substance, all possible perfection-
-a conception which satisfies that requirement of reason
which demands parsimony in principles, which is free from self-contradiction,
which even contributes to the extension of the employment of reason in experience,
by means of the guidance afforded by this IDEA to order and system,
and which in no respect conflicts with any law of experience.

According to Kant, the physico-theological argument has a good beginning in starting from nature and experience which are empirical and CONDITIONED.
From the empirical and evidence, theists abstract concepts and therefrom the IDEA -naked concepts.
Then, from a universal IDEA they took a big LEAP into the unknown of the UNCONDITIONED.
This in principle is a fallacy of equivocation of taken in the same sense and same time as real.

Why theists take this BIG JUMP and LEAP is as Kant alluded is because of psychology, i.e. a desperate existential crisis to soothe subliminal pains from a cognitive dissonance.

• Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
  After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
  CPR-B397

When one commit this fallacy of equivocation as theists [as philosophical realists] are doing then and at present, it is fallacious regardless whether Kant is familiar or not with Einstein or QM.

Theists and people like Peter Holmes and gang as philosophical realists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
are committing the fallacy of equivocation is conflating the conditioned empirical with the unconditioned God or independent objective reality out there.

[Agent Smith]

Omskrfxz!

Plxfxmz?!

Splfkmr!

Oh, ok!

[Averroes]

Averroes, Happy Eid wishes to you.

Thank you Veritas Aequitas. You are the only person on all forums combined that wishes me Eid when you get the opportunity. This is the second time you wish me on this forum. The first time was pre-covid Eidul Adha. I wish the best guidance for you and all members of the forum everyday of my life.

I do not agree with Islam but all Muslims are humans who must be respected as such.

I take the view that as long as the Angel of Death(peace be upon him) has not come, there is still hope for every son of Adam. And I have hope that God, the Almighty, will give you faith for this and any good that you have shown. Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) said: “Do not consider any act of goodness as being insignificant even if it is meeting your brother with a cheerful face.” [Related by Muslim.]

Kant came from the Pietist tradition [a sort of fringe Christianity] which Kant subsequently abandoned and turned against religion, especially Christianity.

No doubt Kant abandoned mainstream Christianity. But so did Isaac Newton. But Isaac Newton was a firm believer in the Christian Bible and even an erudite in the Bible. The common thing about them is that they both rejected the Trinity. Newton rejected it on grounds that it is extra-biblical and goes against the very first and most important commandment of God the Almighty [i.e. Mark 12:29-31] in the Bible, and Kant on grounds that it is illogical and useless. So, that he deviated from mainstream Christianity was not really an issue, as mainstream Christianity itself seriously deviated (and still does) from its original message. That said though, I do believe that Kant's beliefs did seriously deviate from the original message of Christianity as well.
Personally, I think that Kant was greatly struggling in his faith after he having read Hume. Hume was really devastating to the Christian faith in the West (whether mainstream or fringe), and Kant took it head on. He did what he could to salvage what he could but he was in the end all messed up. And the science of his time did not help him either. The latter point needs more explanation on Kant's writings, Newton mechanics and Einstein relativity. More on that later if God wills and if I have the time to dwell into the CPR again.

I have not read of Kant's main dispute with Christianity was a non-acceptance of the Trinity. - Any reference?

Of course, but I find it important to give a little background context first if you don't mind.

Christianity as you must already know is divided into many sects and branches called denominations, and among these myriads sects there are three predominant denominations namely Catholic (about 50% of Christians in the world), Protestant (about 37%) and Orthodox (about 12%) which are in turn each divided into multiple sub-branches. For example, Lutheranism is a sub-branch of Protestantism and Pietism is in turn a sub-branch of Lutheranism.

The different major denominations have a lot of differences, and many wars have been fought between them over these differences. But they all share one fundamental belief such that if one were to deny that belief one would no longer be a member of that denomination. That belief is the Trinity. I use the umbrella term "mainstream" Christianity to refer to the collection of the major denominations of Christianity with their shared belief in the Trinity. Thus, denying the Trinity is the greatest heresy in mainstream Christianity. Many people were burnt at stakes for denying the Trinity in medieval times, so just losing professorship would have been a gift to Kant! Newton too knew of the consequences of openly denying the Trinity in his time, and thus kept it secret. Only people in his close circle knew about his rejection of the Trinity, among them his close friend John Lock.

As I said Kant unambiguously rejected the Trinity on grounds that is was unintelligible and practically irrelevant. Strangely enough mainstream Christianity itself does not disagree that the Trinity is unintelligible by often calling it a mystery! You will find Kant's rejection in his book The Conflict of Faculties first published in 1798. There is copy freely available on Scribd.

Quote from Kant, Immanuel - Conflict of the Faculties (Abaris, 1979):

"Philosophical Principles of Scriptural Exegesis for Settling the Conflict
I. If a scriptural text contains certain theoretical teachings which are proclaimed sacred but which transcend all rational
concepts (even moral ones), it may be interpreted in the interests of practical reason; but if it contains statements that contradict practical reason, it must be interpreted in the interests of practical reason. Here are some pertinent examples.

a) The doctrine of the Trinity, taken literally, has no practical relevance at all, even if we think we understand it; and it is even more clearly irrelevant if we realize that it transcends all our concepts. Whether we are to worship three or ten persons in the Divinity makes no difference: the pupil will implicitly accept one as readily as the other because he has no concept at all of a number of persons in one God (hypostases), and still more so because this distinction can make no difference in his rules of conduct. On the other hand, if we read a moral meaning into this article of faith (as I have tried to do in Religion within the Limits etc.), it would no longer contain an inconsequential belief but an intelligible one that refers to our moral vocation. The same holds true of the doctrine that one person of the Godhead became man. For if we think of this God-man, not as the Idea of humanity in its full moral perfection, present in God from eternity and beloved by Him* (cf. Religion, p. 73 ft), but as the Divinity "dwelling incarnate" in a real man and working as a second nature in him, then we can draw nothing practical from this mystery: since we cannot require ourselves to rival a God, we cannot take him as an example. And I shall not insist on the further difficulty-why, if such a union is possible in one case, God has not let all men participate in it, so that everyone would necessarily be pleasing to Him. Similar considerations can be raised about the stories of the Resurrection and Ascension of this God-man. " [Conflict of the Faculties]

Kant is often regarded as a Deist, but he was most likely a closet-atheist, given his time when theism was dominant.

I understand why you would think that given your current (temporary I hope) inclination. And to be fair I will also recognise why I am inclined to think otherwise. But at the end of the day, only God, the Almighty knows what is truly in a person's heart and His judgement is the only one that matters. Debate on the matter is fruitless. I find it more useful to learn from Kant's mistake and not repeat them. Kant tried to tread a heavily mined field but stepped on too many mines. We are now in a privileged position of knowing where the field is and not tread it. Thus making his example and sacrifices not be in vain.

But as you would have noted, to Kant, the physico-theological argument, is a useless argument to prove God's existence as real.

In his time, the science was that matter and energy were believed to be distinct. Thus, even though he acknowledged that the design argument can demonstrate to him the existence of an author of the world but, however, not an all-sufficient Creator as according to him that would lead to a contradiction given that he believed such a Creator would be limited by the matter being organised to form the world. Had he lived in the time of Einstein to witness the famous E=mc2, he would not have said that, as he would have understood that matter itself is energy as much as the kinetic energy [which he recognised] required to be imparted to organise the matter. And had he further witness the developments in science till today, he would have been blown away. Thus in the last quotation above, Kant got all his facts wrong and all his philosophy following that is thus wrong. Thus the Design argument now has passed all Kant's requirements and even surpassed it, namely the contingency of both form and matter is now well established in science. The Design argument, which he respected, would be now in his mind in no need of the other arguments as he claimed. Had he known that, intelligent as he was he would have been glad or so I like to believe.

To the contrary, if Kant is living at present, QM theories and the neurosciences based on the human-based FSKs would definitely have supported his Copernican Revolution and argument that God is impossible to be proven within reality.

Based on the unfortunately erroneous science of his time (ie. Newtonian mechanics), Kant did indeed think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty), but that the Design argument merely proved the existence of an Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works. But our knowledge has greatly advanced since Kant, and such an objection can no longer be raised. At least Kant would have the excuse of being ignorant of Einstein relativity theories, but we do not have such an excuse nowadays. So repeating Kant's mistake would not be wise given the state of our scientific knowledge. And thus by not repeating his mistake, we do not let his contribution go in vain.

We need not to go into QM when talking about the Design argument in Kant. But if we add QM into the discussion then the discussion becomes way more interesting. So as you mentioned QM, if you don't mind, I am allowing myself to further the discussion and philosophize on QM a bit. QM is about sub-atomic particles, while the Design argument expounded in Kant is about the macroscopic world hence dealt with in classical mechanics (umbrella term for Newtonian and Relativistic mechanics). And the current state of our scientific knowledge is such that in classical mechanics the chaoticity/randomness/indeterminism of Quantum mechanics is averaged out and becomes transparent in the macroscopic world. In more simplistic terms, we do not observe the randomness of Quantum mechanics in classical mechanics. Yet another way to put it is that the randomness of quantum world does not spill into the classical world! For if we imagine for one second that this randomness were to spill into the macroscopic world, then everything will be chaos. Worst yet there would be no "we" itself to observe the chaos as we wouldn't even exist! This gives one the idea that an agent is preventing this spill and maintaining the macroscopic world in order.

Were we to summarise our philosophical findings so far we might come to the following conclusions. From the framework of Newtonian mechanics, Kant agreed that the Design argument establishes that there was an Author of the world who according to Kant was limited by the capabilities of the materials with which He works. From the Relativistic framework the limit expounded in Kant was lifted, and we could do what Kant could not due to his limited knowledge. Namely, from the relativistic framework we can now establish through the Design argument that there is an All-Sufficient Creator of the world Who creates as He wills, as matter and energy are the same in the relativistic framework. And from the Quantum mechanics framework, we can now go even beyond that with the Design argument, namely we can establish there is a Maintainer of the world, for otherwise there will be chaos were quantum randomness to spill into the classical macroscopic world. I like to believe that Kant will be proud of us (both you and me) for making good use of his philosophy by debugging and fructifying his philosophical legacy like that.

Allah, the Almighty says in the Holy Quran in chapter 39 verse 62 the following:

ٱللَّهُ خَـٰلِقُ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ ۖ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ وَكِيلٌۭ
Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Maintainer of everything.[Holy Quran 39:62]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thank you Veritas Aequitas. You are the only person on all forums combined that wishes me Eid when you get the opportunity. This is the second time you wish me on this forum. The first time was pre-covid Eidul Adha. I wish the best guidance for you and all members of the forum everyday of my life.

I do not agree with Islam but all Muslims are humans who must be respected as such.

I take the view that as long as the Angel of Death(peace be upon him) has not come, there is still hope for every son of Adam. And I have hope that God, the Almighty, will give you faith for this and any good that you have shown. Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) said: “Do not consider any act of goodness as being insignificant even if it is meeting your brother with a cheerful face.” [Related by Muslim.]

Having graduated from the school of theism, there is no way I will fall back to that lower grade.
I am sure you are aware, as a non-believer [kafir] I am condemned by Allah in the Quran in the most despicable way, i.e. dehumanized, destined to be burnt in hell, etc.
In addition, and unfortunately, it is a great sin for any Muslim to befriend a non-believer even if they are the parents, siblings, relatives, etc.

I have not read of Kant's main dispute with Christianity was a non-acceptance of the Trinity. - Any reference?

Of course, but I find it important to give a little background context first if you don't mind.

You will find Kant's rejection in his book The Conflict of Faculties first published in 1798. There is copy freely available on Scribd.

I had not read of Kant's view on the Trinity and I note it is the above book.

My view is, since Kant condemned and was hostile to religion on an overall basis plus he viewed God as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion, it is obvious he would not agree to their main doctrines, e.g. Trinity, Son of God, prophets and messengers send by God.

As such, Kant would not have any good words for a theistic religion like Islam or any other theistic religions.

Kant is often regarded as a Deist, but he was most likely a closet-atheist, given his time when theism was dominant.

I understand why you would think that given your current (temporary I hope) inclination. And to be fair I will also recognise why I am inclined to think otherwise. But at the end of the day, only God, the Almighty knows what is truly in a person's heart and His judgement is the only one that matters. Debate on the matter is fruitless. I find it more useful to learn from Kant's mistake and not repeat them. Kant tried to tread a heavily mined field but stepped on too many mines. We are now in a privileged position of knowing where the field is and not tread it. Thus making his example and sacrifices not be in vain.

From what I read of Kant's view and they way he put-down God as impossible to be proven as real except to use God [regulatively] as a useful illusion and that he dared to condemn religion during his time till he was threatened, it is very likely he was a closet-non-theist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To the contrary, if Kant is living at present, QM theories and the neurosciences based on the human-based FSKs would definitely have supported his Copernican Revolution and argument that God is impossible to be proven within reality.

Based on the unfortunately erroneous science of his time (ie. Newtonian mechanics), Kant did indeed think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty), but that the Design argument merely proved the existence of an Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works.
But our knowledge has greatly advanced since Kant, and such an objection can no longer be raised. At least Kant would have the excuse of being ignorant of Einstein relativity theories, but we do not have such an excuse nowadays. So repeating Kant's mistake would not be wise given the state of our scientific knowledge. And thus by not repeating his mistake, we do not let his contribution go in vain.

You missed my point above.

Kant did NOT think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty).

Kant charged that to move from the empirical [CONDITIONED] to the UNCONDITIONED [God] is in principle fallacious, i.e. due to the fallacy of equivocation.
Suggest you read the whole chapter in the CPR related to Kant refutation the Physic-theological argument.

Therefore moving from Newton, Einstein or QM [conditioned] to conclude an Unconditioned God is fallacious.

We need not to go into QM when talking about the Design argument in Kant. But if we add QM into the discussion then the discussion becomes way more interesting. So as you mentioned QM, if you don't mind, I am allowing myself to further the discussion and philosophize on QM a bit. QM is about sub-atomic particles, while the Design argument expounded in Kant is about the macroscopic world hence dealt with in classical mechanics (umbrella term for Newtonian and Relativistic mechanics). And the current state of our scientific knowledge is such that in classical mechanics the chaoticity/randomness/indeterminism of Quantum mechanics is averaged out and becomes transparent in the macroscopic world. In more simplistic terms, we do not observe the randomness of Quantum mechanics in classical mechanics. Yet another way to put it is that the randomness of quantum world does not spill into the classical world! For if we imagine for one second that this randomness were to spill into the macroscopic world, then everything will be chaos. Worst yet there would be no "we" itself to observe the chaos as we wouldn't even exist! This gives one the idea that an agent is preventing this spill and maintaining the macroscopic world in order.

Were we to summarise our philosophical findings so far we might come to the following conclusions. From the framework of Newtonian mechanics, Kant agreed that the Design argument establishes that there was an Author of the world who according to Kant was limited by the capabilities of the materials with which He works.
From the Relativistic framework the limit expounded in Kant was lifted, and we could do what Kant could not due to his limited knowledge. Namely, from the relativistic framework we can now establish through the Design argument that there is an All-Sufficient Creator of the world Who creates as He wills, as matter and energy are the same in the relativistic framework.
And from the Quantum mechanics framework, we can now go even beyond that with the Design argument, namely we can establish there is a Maintainer of the world, for otherwise there will be chaos were quantum randomness to spill into the classical macroscopic world. I like to believe that Kant will be proud of us (both you and me) for making good use of his philosophy by debugging and fructifying his philosophical legacy like that.

Allah, the Almighty says in the Holy Quran in chapter 39 verse 62 the following:

ٱللَّهُ خَـٰلِقُ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ ۖ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ وَكِيلٌۭ
Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Maintainer of everything.[Holy Quran 39:62]

It is often stated the the micro-scopic state of QM do not apply to the macro-scopic of the Einsteinian or Newtonian World.
Yes, the theories are different but in reality they are fundamentally the same.

Take the example of steam, water, and ice.
At the macro scale they appear to be different,
but at the micro scale they are all H20 molecules bonded with different distances between the molecules.
At the QM level, they are also of the same things [suppositions - particles] but collapsing in different states and distances.

Regardless of whether they are in the micro [QM] or macro state [solid, etc.], they are in the Conditioned state and it would be fallacious to leap to the Unconditioned state of a God.

In general, this is Kant's view where it is fallacious to leap [driven psychologically] from the conditioned to the unconditioned;

The sensuous world contains nothing but phenomena, which are mere
representations, and always sensuously conditioned;
things in themselves are not, and cannot be, objects to us.

It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that we are not justified in leaping from some member of an empirical series beyond the world of sense, as if empirical representations were things-in-themselves, existing apart from their transcendental ground in the human mind, and the cause of whose existence may be sought out of the empirical series [the Unconditioned].
CRP -Micklejohn

The physico-theologians have therefore no reason to regard with such contempt the transcendental mode of argument, and to look down upon it, with the conceit of clear-sighted observers of nature, as the brain-cobweb of obscure speculatists.

For, if they reflect upon and examine their own arguments, they will find that, after following for some time the path of nature and experience, and discovering themselves no nearer their object,
they suddenly leave this path and pass into the region of pure possibility, where they hope to reach upon the wings of ideas what had eluded all their empirical investigations.
Gaining, as they think, a firm footing after this immense leap, they extend their determinate conception--into the possession of which they have come, they know not how--over the whole sphere of creation, and explain their ideal, which is entirely a product of pure reason, by illustrations drawn from experience--though in a degree miserably unworthy of the grandeur of the object, while they refuse to acknowledge that they have arrived at this cognition or hypothesis by a very different road from that of experience.
CRP -Micklejohn

The Micklejohn copy from the link you gave do not have CPR A&B reference.
I believe you can to the above by using the 'FIND' function.

In the whole of Kant's CPR he is accusing the theists and philosophical realists of taking a fallacious leap from the conditioned to the Unconditioned [illusory] and then reify the illusory as the most real.

[Averroes]

To the contrary, if Kant is living at present, QM theories and the neurosciences based on the human-based FSKs would definitely have supported his Copernican Revolution and argument that God is impossible to be proven within reality.

Based on the unfortunately erroneous science of his time (ie. Newtonian mechanics), Kant did indeed think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty), but that the Design argument merely proved the existence of an Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works.
But our knowledge has greatly advanced since Kant, and such an objection can no longer be raised. At least Kant would have the excuse of being ignorant of Einstein relativity theories, but we do not have such an excuse nowadays. So repeating Kant's mistake would not be wise given the state of our scientific knowledge. And thus by not repeating his mistake, we do not let his contribution go in vain.

You missed my point above.

Kant did NOT think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty).

I didn't miss your point at all but I think since we were talking about so many things at once, you missed the passage of the Critique where Kant explicitly stated that. As I know this is important to you (as you started the thread), from now on I propose that we concentrate on one point at a time if you don't mind, so that important passages don't get missed again. So let me quote the relevant passage again and let us concentrate on just that if you agree:

• According to the physico-theological argument, the connection and harmony existing in the world evidence the contingency of the form merely, but not of the matter, that is, of the substance of the world. To establish the truth of the latter opinion, it would be necessary to prove that all things would be in themselves incapable of this harmony and order, unless they were, even as regards their substance, the product of a supreme wisdom. But this would require very different grounds of proof from those presented by the analogy with human art. This proof can at most, therefore, demonstrate the existence of an architect of the world, whose efforts are limited by the capabilities of the material with which he works, but not of a creator of the world, to whom all things are subject. Thus this argument is utterly insufficient for the task before us – a demonstration of the existence of an all-sufficient being. If we wish to prove the contingency of matter, we must have recourse to a transcendental argument, which the physico-theological was constructed expressly to avoid. [CPR]

So, as I was saying and can be read in the quotation above, Kant did indeed think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty), but that the Design argument merely proved the existence of an Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works. But again, as I was saying, Kant was basing his reasoning on the erroneous science of his time. With our tremendous advance in science since the beginning of the 20th century, we now know better. With Einstein famous equation E=mc2, we now understand that matter and energy are the same. With the new scientific knowledge of Einstein, the same argument which Kant agreed demonstrated the existence of an Author of the world now also demonstrate the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator, as matter and energy are the same. It is now well established in science that not just form but matter as well is contingent, contrary to what Kant thought as this was unknown to him. Note that he says that we need a transcendental argument to prove the contingency of matter and we know that is false nowadays as Einstein proved him wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I didn't miss your point at all but I think since we were talking about so many things at once, you missed the passage of the Critique where Kant explicitly stated that. As I know this is important to you (as you started the thread), from now on I propose that we concentrate on one point at a time if you don't mind, so that important passages don't get missed again. So let me quote the relevant passage again and let us concentrate on just that if you agree:

• According to the physico-theological argument, the connection and harmony existing in the world evidence the contingency of the form merely, but not of the matter, that is, of the substance of the world. To establish the truth of the latter opinion, it would be necessary to prove that all things would be in themselves incapable of this harmony and order, unless they were, even as regards their substance, the product of a supreme wisdom. But this would require very different grounds of proof from those presented by the analogy with human art. This proof can at most, therefore, demonstrate the existence of an architect of the world, whose efforts are limited by the capabilities of the material with which he works, but not of a creator of the world, to whom all things are subject. Thus this argument is utterly insufficient for the task before us – a demonstration of the existence of an all-sufficient being. If we wish to prove the contingency of matter, we must have recourse to a transcendental argument, which the physico-theological was constructed expressly to avoid. [CPR]

So, as I was saying and can be read in the quotation above, Kant did indeed think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty), but that the Design argument merely proved the existence of an Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works.

OK, noted. I was thinking too far ahead with my point re taking the leap from the Conditioned to the Unconditioned.

But again, as I was saying, Kant was basing his reasoning on the erroneous science of his time.

Newtonian Physics is not erroneous but rather true and useful as conditioned and qualified to the Newtonian Framework and System of Knowledge.

Kant did not rely upon Newtonian Physics to argue the Physico-Theological Argument is false and thus unable to prove the existent of a God that is real. Kant's argument against God's existence as real is based on his whole CPR as one main argument.
Kant's main argument covers that the physico-theological argument is a disguised ontological proof, thus had actually relied upon Pure Reason alone, not on experience as it claimed.

• Thus the physico-theological proof, failing in its undertaking, has in face of this difficulty suddenly fallen back upon the cosmological proof;
  and since the latter [cosmological] is only a disguised ontological proof, it has really achieved its purpose by Pure Reason alone -- although at the start it disclaimed all kinship with Pure Reason and professed to establish its conclusions on convincing evidence derived from Experience.
  B657 Smith's Translation

With our tremendous advance in science since the beginning of the 20th century, we now know better.
With Einstein famous equation E=mc2, we now understand that matter and energy are the same.

All knowledge are conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge. [FSK]
Newtonian Physics is conditioned upon the human based Newtonian Framework and Einsteinian Physics is conditioned upon the human based Einsteinian Framework and System of Knowledge.
QM Physics is conditioned upon human based QM Framework and System of Knowledge.

The trend is Einsteinian is more realistic than Newtonian Physics; QM is more realistic than Einsteinian Physics.
But note, they are all conditioned upon a human based Framework and System of Knowledge.

With the new scientific knowledge of Einstein, the same argument which Kant agreed demonstrated the existence of an Author of the world now also demonstrate the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator, as matter and energy are the same.

It is now well established in science that not just form but matter as well is contingent, contrary to what Kant thought as this was unknown to him.

Whether it is 'matter' or 'energy' this knowledge is conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge.
Because 'energy' is human-based knowledge [conditioned], it cannot justify an All-Sufficient Creator which is absolute independent, all-sufficient, thus Unconditioned.

Note that he says that we need a transcendental argument to prove the contingency of matter and we know that is false nowadays as Einstein proved him wrong.

If Kant was knowledgeable of Einstein's theories or QM theories which are human based, Kant will still insist that a transcendental argument is necessary.
But ultimately, a transcendental argument cannot prove the existence of a God that is real but merely enable an IDEA of an illusory God which is a very useful illusion for various reasons.

You need to read this B657-658 [NK Smith's translation];
(I am using the Smith's translation)

• Those who propound the physico-theological argument have therefore no Ground for being so contemptuous in their attitude to the Transcendental Mode of proof, posing as clearsighted students of Nature, and complacently looking down upon that proof as the artificial product of obscure Speculative refinements. A630 B658
  
  For were they willing to scrutinise their own procedure, they would find that,
  after advancing some considerable way on the solid Ground of Nature and Experience,
  and finding themselves just as far distant as ever from the Object which discloses itself to their Reason,
  they suddenly leave this Ground, and pass over into the realm of mere possibilities,
  where they hope upon the wings of Ideas to draw near to the Object -- the Object that has refused itself to all their Empirical enquiries.
  
  For after this tremendous leap, when they have, as they think, found firm Ground, they extend their Concept -- the Determinate Concept, into the possession of which they have now come, they know not how -- over the whole sphere of creation.
  And the Ideal, [which this reasoning thus involves, and] which is entirely a product of Pure Reason, they then elucidate by reference to Experience, though inadequately enough, and in a manner far below the dignity of its Object; and throughout they persist in refusing to admit that they have arrived at this Knowledge or Hypothesis by a road quite other than that of Experience.
  
  Thus the physico-theological proof of the Existence of an Original or Supreme Being rests upon the cosmological proof, and the cosmological upon the ontological.
  And since, besides these three, there is no other path open to Speculative Reason,
  the ontological proof from Pure Concepts of Reason is the only Possible one,
  if indeed any proof of a Proposition so far exalted above all Empirical employment of the Understanding is Possible at all.

Kant went on to demonstrate the ontological proof also failed to prove the existence of a real God.

[Averroes]

I didn't miss your point at all but I think since we were talking about so many things at once, you missed the passage of the Critique where Kant explicitly stated that. As I know this is important to you (as you started the thread), from now on I propose that we concentrate on one point at a time if you don't mind, so that important passages don't get missed again. So let me quote the relevant passage again and let us concentrate on just that if you agree:

• According to the physico-theological argument, the connection and harmony existing in the world evidence the contingency of the form merely, but not of the matter, that is, of the substance of the world. To establish the truth of the latter opinion, it would be necessary to prove that all things would be in themselves incapable of this harmony and order, unless they were, even as regards their substance, the product of a supreme wisdom. But this would require very different grounds of proof from those presented by the analogy with human art. This proof can at most, therefore, demonstrate the existence of an architect of the world, whose efforts are limited by the capabilities of the material with which he works, but not of a creator of the world, to whom all things are subject. Thus this argument is utterly insufficient for the task before us – a demonstration of the existence of an all-sufficient being. If we wish to prove the contingency of matter, we must have recourse to a transcendental argument, which the physico-theological was constructed expressly to avoid. [CPR]

So, as I was saying and can be read in the quotation above, Kant did indeed think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty), but that the Design argument merely proved the existence of an Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works.

OK, noted. I was thinking too far ahead with my point re taking the leap from the Conditioned to the Unconditioned.

That happens, but let us go slowly on this one if you don't mind to prevent this from happening again. Firstly let me ask you, do you agree with Kant on the passage quoted? Kant is clearly saying that the Design argument though insufficient to demonstrate the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator, however, it does demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works. Do you agree with Kant on that much?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I didn't miss your point at all but I think since we were talking about so many things at once, you missed the passage of the Critique where Kant explicitly stated that. As I know this is important to you (as you started the thread), from now on I propose that we concentrate on one point at a time if you don't mind, so that important passages don't get missed again. So let me quote the relevant passage again and let us concentrate on just that if you agree:

• According to the physico-theological argument, the connection and harmony existing in the world evidence the contingency of the form merely, but not of the matter, that is, of the substance of the world. To establish the truth of the latter opinion, it would be necessary to prove that all things would be in themselves incapable of this harmony and order, unless they were, even as regards their substance, the product of a supreme wisdom. But this would require very different grounds of proof from those presented by the analogy with human art. This proof can at most, therefore, demonstrate the existence of an architect of the world, whose efforts are limited by the capabilities of the material with which he works, but not of a creator of the world, to whom all things are subject. Thus this argument is utterly insufficient for the task before us – a demonstration of the existence of an all-sufficient being. If we wish to prove the contingency of matter, we must have recourse to a transcendental argument, which the physico-theological was constructed expressly to avoid. [CPR]

So, as I was saying and can be read in the quotation above, Kant did indeed think that the Design argument was insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator (ie. God, The Almighty), but that the Design argument merely proved the existence of an Author/Fashioner of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works.

OK, noted. I was thinking too far ahead with my point re taking the leap from the Conditioned to the Unconditioned.

That happens, but let us go slowly on this one if you don't mind to prevent this from happening again. Firstly let me ask you, do you agree with Kant on the passage quoted?

Kant is clearly saying that the Design argument though insufficient to demonstrate the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator, however, it does demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works.
Do you agree with Kant on that much?

I agree Kant's points as quoted above, but it needs detailed expositions.

In the above 'ALL-Sufficient Creator' Smith translated as "all-sufficient Primordial Being" which is the Absolutely Unconditioned God.

Re "it does demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works."
"Material" you think refer to 'matter' of Newton, but 'material' is anything that human-based science can verify and justify. [see WIKI's Materialism and Physicalism below]
Since Einstein's matter or QM 'matter' can be verified and justified by human-based science, it is at best limited to "an Author of the world" not the "ALL-Sufficient Creator'

To prove the existence of an "ALL-Sufficient Creator' i.e. the absolute unconditioned, a transcendental argument is needed which ultimately must be avoided.

• This, however, is altogether inadequate to the lofty purpose which we have before our eyes, namely, the proof of an all-sufficient Primordial Being.
  To prove the contingency of Matter itself, we should have to resort to a Transcendental argument, and this is precisely what we have here set out to avoid.
  B655 Smith's Tran

As stated, 'Matter' can be Newtonian [solids], Einstein [Energy] or QM [wave or particle].

Note this., where 'energy' is regarded as 'matter';

• Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is dependent while material interactions are secondary.
  
  Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). Thus, the term physicalism is preferred over materialism by some, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism