God is an Impossibility

[Prismatic567]

My point is the infinity, infinite that you claimed as Absolute [i.e. God] is impossible to be real empirically nor philosophically.

Note, absolute = totally unconditional from everything including human beings.
Where your God is claimed to absolute and absolutely-perfect, there is in principle an unbridgeable-gap. Thus there is no possibility of knowing such a God as real by any human being.

As implied earlier, when you insist your infinity/Infinite [God] is absolutely absolute, it is no difference from the claim God is absolutely-perfect as I had demonstrated in the OP.

My point was that infinity is unknowable. If “the absolute” refers to the infinite, it is unknowable. Infinity/absolute taken as totality is an illusion. That's clear from what I stated in the missile thought experiment.
The problem is that your statement that infinity and/or is impossible to be real empirically, conflates epistemology and ontology.
It is impossible for infinity to be known empirically. My riff on your "missile shot from a space shuttle" illustrates exactly that point.

I do not get your exact point above.

However 'ontology' in the theistic sense, is not tenable, feasibly or possible to be real.
In your case, you are relying on the ontology of God which has attribute of absolute-perfection.
I have argued in this thread, such an ontological God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
Btw, to the Abrahamic, God has to be real to the extent of listening and answering prayers, creating and sustaining the universe, grant eternal life in heaven, etc.
Such a God is impossible to be real in the above sense.

Kant’s critique of pure reason is a work of epistemology not ontology. Read his other works. He never gave up on God as a possibility. You seem to be making scientific empiricism into a closed system which it ain’t.

Kant CPR ultimate focus is about metaphysics and ontology where he demonstrated metaphysical-ontology are impossibility as contrasted to Mathematics and Science.

Yes, Kant is a deist and did align with the idea of God [I do not agree with Kant on this] but only for moral reasons not as a reality within the empirical world.

[Prismatic567]

God, as these nihilists have defined the concept, implies an absolute state - a singularity, i.e., immutable, indivisible.
This contradicts our experience of reality, which is continuously mutable, and infinitely divisible - for reasons I will not get into here, but has to do with how the mind translated dynamic interactivity into singular abstractions.
There is no underlying, beyond, to validate this mono-god, because we can use similar strategies to validate any absurdity, i.e., by claiming that it exists in some alternate reality, or in a occult realm, or in some beyond time/space plane of existence.
If someone shows me, not tells me, but shows me a singularity, I'll conceded the point and pray to the Abrahamic one-god, until then I will believe ni gods, as representations of natural forces.

That is the point;

because we can use similar strategies to validate any absurdity

It exists right now without any absurdity, it’s wisdom and I’ve already proven it. It is one thing that does not spawn out of imagination, only if you give it form outside of existence does it.

Actually the 'absurdity' refers to the one who made the claim 'God exists' without any groundings nor arguments.

In the above you are making claims after claims but provide no justifiable evidence nor arguments at all.

There are many schizophrenics over history who claim they 'know' God with certainty where that God commanded them to kill people and they followed that command to the 't.'
Surely you would want evidence and arguments to support such a claim - in any case no evidence will be probable from the schizo.

Point is one cannot simply make claims without justifiable evidence nor arguments at all. If so, there will be many absurd claims.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Prismatic,

Note what counts is whether there are rational counter-arguments to my arguments grounded on critical thinking.
How many disagree with me via their subjective feelings without counter arguments is not critical.

This is an unnecessary detachment, because it assumes that subjectivity does not involve critical thinking and/or rationality, and that subjective arguments are not valid in response to your claims. Not on the basis of their content, but because of their nature. As if when discussing things like God and perfection our personal beliefs are not relevant or do not influence our thinking.

And of course, rational counterarguments have been made, and these were not adequately responded to. His idea of response is a combination of appeals to authority, dismissing via unsupported judgment, and restating his position. IOW he writes this as if he responds to couterarguments in a rational way, but he does not. Once I get this kind of response a few times, I move over to simply being critical and pointing out patterns of interaction. So, he'll focus on this, as if he has not gotten other types of response also.

[Artimas]

Actually the 'absurdity' refers to the one who made the claim 'God exists' without any groundings nor arguments.

In the above you are making claims after claims but provide no justifiable evidence nor arguments at all.

There are many schizophrenics over history who claim they 'know' God with certainty where that God commanded them to kill people and they followed that command to the 't.'
Surely you would want evidence and arguments to support such a claim - in any case no evidence will be probable from the schizo.

Point is one cannot simply make claims without justifiable evidence nor arguments at all. If so, there will be many absurd claims.

The argument has already been made, in threads and here. Your dismissal of it does not mean it was not made. The only whom has argued against it is you and not even in the correct context. Because you can’t argue against it, it’s a purely logical and reasonable version of the idea that is god.

You’re the schizo here guy, look at your thread and how many philosophers are against your mundane misinterpreted ideas of god, which isn’t even being argued for anyways. Look at how many are in my thread god being a possibility, except you. Should tell you who the schizophrenic is

[Artimas]

Prismatic,

Note what counts is whether there are rational counter-arguments to my arguments grounded on critical thinking.
How many disagree with me via their subjective feelings without counter arguments is not critical.

This is an unnecessary detachment, because it assumes that subjectivity does not involve critical thinking and/or rationality, and that subjective arguments are not valid in response to your claims. Not on the basis of their content, but because of their nature. As if when discussing things like God and perfection our personal beliefs are not relevant or do not influence our thinking.

And of course, rational counterarguments have been made, and these were not adequately responded to. His idea of response is a combination of appeals to authority, dismissing via unsupported judgment, and restating his position. IOW he writes this as if he responds to couterarguments in a rational way, but he does not. Once I get this kind of response a few times, I move over to simply being critical and pointing out patterns of interaction. So, he'll focus on this, as if he has not gotten other types of response also.

I made a whole thread disproving this one, where I set the parameter of what god is and the idea I am defending and he still arrived there arguing the misinterpreted version of it, the literal man in the sky, which is NOT the correct INTERPRETATION of the fucking GOD that was spoken of. If he can’t change his view then it’s his own issue. He bases his entire argument off of a misconstrued idea of god then says he wins, how utterly nonsensical.

[Prismatic567]

Actually the 'absurdity' refers to the one who made the claim 'God exists' without any groundings nor arguments.

In the above you are making claims after claims but provide no justifiable evidence nor arguments at all.

There are many schizophrenics over history who claim they 'know' God with certainty where that God commanded them to kill people and they followed that command to the 't.'
Surely you would want evidence and arguments to support such a claim - in any case no evidence will be probable from the schizo.

Point is one cannot simply make claims without justifiable evidence nor arguments at all. If so, there will be many absurd claims.

The argument has already been made, in threads and here.

Where are your arguments that I have not countered?

Don't simply make claims.
If you can point your arguments I had not effectively countered, I will show you I have done so. It had happened in many other cases.

[Fanman]

KT,

And of course, rational counterarguments have been made, and these were not adequately responded to. His idea of response is a combination of appeals to authority, dismissing via unsupported judgment, and restating his position. IOW he writes this as if he responds to couterarguments in a rational way, but he does not. Once I get this kind of response a few times, I move over to simply being critical and pointing out patterns of interaction. So, he'll focus on this, as if he has not gotten other types of response also.

This is why I also become critical of him. After pages and pages of people presenting rational counter-arguments, he has reduced everything that others have said to “subjective feelings” which is clearly not the case. Valid points have been made in abundance, but he has not recognised them. He believes that he has successfully countered everyone's arguments, that he has proven God is an impossibility and even that his argument is ironically, perfect. Given this, I don't see how he would recognise any valid counter-arguments (which he hasn't) and if he did, would he even acknowledge them? In the other thread where we were discussing instincts, he dismissed Maslow's ideas out of hand, which disagreed with what he was claiming. And when I asked him for evidence related to his claim, he implied I was too dumb to interpret it. I don't believe that he gives serious consideration to counter-arguments or points, when they contradict what he is claiming. He just sees them as entities that need to be countered, never mind how it makes him appear.

Despite Prismatic's big brain, I believe this is what it comes down to with him, in his response to Artimas;

Where are your arguments that I have not countered?

Don't simply make claims.
If you can point your arguments I had not effectively countered, I will show you I have done so. It had happened in many other cases.

He simply won't tolerate the possibility that different ideas to his can have any validity. I don't want to criticise him excessively, as I have my own flaws, I don't know him personally and I acknowledge that he is a bright person, but I have never encountered anyone with such an unyielding view of their own correctness; more so extending into so many different fields. Even the most educated people I've encountered seemed to accept their own fallibility and did not take themselves so seriously outside of their professions. I don't know what qualifications he holds, but if he is self-taught, it would not be right for him to be so dismissive - no matter how naturally intelligent he is.

[felix dakat]

My point is the infinity, infinite that you claimed as Absolute [i.e. God] is impossible to be real empirically nor philosophically.

Note, absolute = totally unconditional from everything including human beings.
Where your God is claimed to absolute and absolutely-perfect, there is in principle an unbridgeable-gap. Thus there is no possibility of knowing such a God as real by any human being.

As implied earlier, when you insist your infinity/Infinite [God] is absolutely absolute, it is no difference from the claim God is absolutely-perfect as I had demonstrated in the OP.

My point was that infinity is unknowable. If “the absolute” refers to the infinite, it is unknowable. Infinity/absolute taken as totality is an illusion. That's clear from what I stated in the missile thought experiment.
The problem is that your statement that infinity and/or is impossible to be real empirically, conflates epistemology and ontology.
It is impossible for infinity to be known empirically. My riff on your "missile shot from a space shuttle" illustrates exactly that point.

I do not get your exact point above.

However 'ontology' in the theistic sense, is not tenable, feasibly or possible to be real.
In your case, you are relying on the ontology of God which has attribute of absolute-perfection.
I have argued in this thread, such an ontological God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
Btw, to the Abrahamic, God has to be real to the extent of listening and answering prayers, creating and sustaining the universe, grant eternal life in heaven, etc.
Such a God is impossible to be real in the above sense.

Kant’s critique of pure reason is a work of epistemology not ontology. Read his other works. He never gave up on God as a possibility. You seem to be making scientific empiricism into a closed system which it ain’t.

Kant CPR ultimate focus is about metaphysics and ontology where he demonstrated metaphysical-ontology are impossibility as contrasted to Mathematics and Science.

Yes, Kant is a deist and did align with the idea of God [I do not agree with Kant on this] but only for moral reasons not as a reality within the empirical world.

No I am not relying on "an ontology in which God has the attribute of absolute perfection". I doubt human beings are capable of knowing what that is. If you were only saying that it is impossible for God to be known rationally or empirically as a totality or an absolute certainty that would make sense to me. But to say that it's impossible for God “to be real empirically’ suggests that empiricism is closed system which it isn't.
To Kant God was unknowably transcendent. Kant maintained that neither human reason nor the empirical world could give any direct or unequivocal indication of divine reality. He refuted the rationalistic arguments for the existence of God. But Kant left open the possibility of faith in the transcendent God and belief in the soul’s freedom and immortality. It seems to me you’re trying to use Kant to refute Kant.
A religious tradition that recognizes that God is ultimately unknowable didn't start with Kant. It has a long history in Christianity. According to this way of thinking whatever qualities the human mind attributes to God cannot be considered ultimately valid for if they are humanly comprehensible they must be limited to the finitude of human understanding which can't possibly comprehend the infinite nature of God. Kant's philosophy of God is consistent with this perspective. Yours isn't.

[Prismatic567]

Kant CPR ultimate focus is about metaphysics and ontology where he demonstrated metaphysical-ontology are impossibility as contrasted to Mathematics and Science.

Yes, Kant is a deist and did align with the idea of God [I do not agree with Kant on this] but only for moral reasons not as a reality within the empirical world.

No I am not relying on "an ontology in which God has the attribute of absolute perfection". I doubt human beings are capable of knowing what that is. If you were only saying that it is impossible for God to be known rationally or empirically as a totality or an absolute certainty that would make sense to me. But to say that it's impossible for God “to be real empirically’ suggests that empiricism is closed system which it isn't.
To Kant God was unknowably transcendent. Kant maintained that neither human reason nor the empirical world could give any direct or unequivocal indication of divine reality. He refuted the rationalistic arguments for the existence of God. But Kant left open the possibility of faith in the transcendent God and belief in the soul’s freedom and immortality. It seems to me you’re trying to use Kant to refute Kant.
A religious tradition that recognizes that God is ultimately unknowable didn't start with Kant. It has a long history in Christianity. According to this way of thinking whatever qualities the human mind attributes to God cannot be considered ultimately valid for if they are humanly comprehensible they must be limited to the finitude of human understanding which can't possibly comprehend the infinite nature of God. Kant's philosophy of God is consistent with this perspective. Yours isn't.

I did not state I agreed with Kant totally, not where he kept the term 'God' in the deistic sense. Note deistic not theistic.

Kant's argument is the idea of God is an illusion if claimed to be empirically real, i.e. to the extent of a God that listens and answers prayers, plus created and sustaining the Universe.

The only provision by Kant for the idea of God is for the purpose of morality where God is absolute [not real].

Note:
Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195263

To Kant, the idea of God should never be reified as real, but merely adapted for the purpose of morality and absolute moral laws.

Perhaps you are banking on the following quote;

For in order to arrive at such insight it must make use of Principles which, in fact, extend only to Objects of Possible Experience,
and which, if also applied to what cannot be an Object of Experience, always really change this into an Appearance,
thus rendering all Practical Extension [i.e. morality] of Pure Reason impossible.
I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.
-Bxxx -Kant in CPR

The above is merely a point in the Preface. The details of the above statement do not provide for any belief i.e. God exists as real. The term 'deny' 'faith' are not the direct translation of their German equivalent.
The main purpose in this case is to make room for the Practical [i.e. Morality] which has nothing to do with any real God but merely with an ontological God [illusion] with the attribute of absolute perfection.

[felix dakat]

Kant CPR ultimate focus is about metaphysics and ontology where he demonstrated metaphysical-ontology are impossibility as contrasted to Mathematics and Science.

Yes, Kant is a deist and did align with the idea of God [I do not agree with Kant on this] but only for moral reasons not as a reality within the empirical world.

No I am not relying on "an ontology in which God has the attribute of absolute perfection". I doubt human beings are capable of knowing what that is. If you were only saying that it is impossible for God to be known rationally or empirically as a totality or an absolute certainty that would make sense to me. But to say that it's impossible for God “to be real empirically’ suggests that empiricism is closed system which it isn't.
To Kant God was unknowably transcendent. Kant maintained that neither human reason nor the empirical world could give any direct or unequivocal indication of divine reality. He refuted the rationalistic arguments for the existence of God. But Kant left open the possibility of faith in the transcendent God and belief in the soul’s freedom and immortality. It seems to me you’re trying to use Kant to refute Kant.
A religious tradition that recognizes that God is ultimately unknowable didn't start with Kant. It has a long history in Christianity. According to this way of thinking whatever qualities the human mind attributes to God cannot be considered ultimately valid for if they are humanly comprehensible they must be limited to the finitude of human understanding which can't possibly comprehend the infinite nature of God. Kant's philosophy of God is consistent with this perspective. Yours isn't.

I did not state I agreed with Kant totally, not where he kept the term 'God' in the deistic sense. Note deistic not theistic.

Kant's argument is the idea of God is an illusion if claimed to be empirically real, i.e. to the extent of a God that listens and answers prayers, plus created and sustaining the Universe.

The only provision by Kant for the idea of God is for the purpose of morality where God is absolute [not real].

Note:
Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=195263

To Kant, the idea of God should never be reified as real, but merely adapted for the purpose of morality and absolute moral laws.

Perhaps you are banking on the following quote;

For in order to arrive at such insight it must make use of Principles which, in fact, extend only to Objects of Possible Experience,
and which, if also applied to what cannot be an Object of Experience, always really change this into an Appearance,
thus rendering all Practical Extension [i.e. morality] of Pure Reason impossible.
I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.
-Bxxx -Kant in CPR

The above is merely a point in the Preface. The details of the above statement do not provide for any belief i.e. God exists as real. The term 'deny' 'faith' are not the direct translation of their German equivalent.
The main purpose in this case is to make room for the Practical [i.e. Morality] which has nothing to do with any real God but merely with an ontological God [illusion] with the attribute of absolute perfection.

Your use of the term "real" above continues to suggest that you are conflating Kant's epistemology with ontology. Kant abandons objective anthropomorphism and possibility of knowing God absolutely or as God as God is in God's self. He does not give up the possibility of Supreme Being as he elucidates here:

When we connect the command to avoid all transcendent
judgments of pure reason with the apparently conflicting
command to proceed to concepts that lie beyond the domain
of immanent (empirical) use, we become aware that the
two commands can subsist together, but only right on the
boundary of all permitted use of reason—for this boundary
belongs equally to the domain of experience and to that of the
creations of thought [= Ideas]. And through that awareness
we also learn how these Ideas, remarkable as they are, serve
merely for marking the boundaries of human reason. On
the one hand they give warning •not to go on extending
our empirical knowledge with no thought of boundaries, as
though nothing but sheer world remained for us to know,
and yet on the other hand •not to overstep the bounds of
experience and want to make judgments about things beyond
them, as things in themselves.
But we stop at this boundary if we limit our judgment
merely to how •the world may relate to •a being whose very
concept lies beyond the reach of any knowledge we are
capable of within the world. For we don’t then attribute to the
supreme being in itself any of the properties through which
we represent objects of experience, and so we avoid dogmatic
anthropomorphism; but we attribute those properties to the
supreme being’s relation to the world, thus allowing ourselves
a symbolic anthropomorphism, which in fact concerns only
language and not the object itself.
When I say that we are compelled to view the world as
if it were the work of a supreme understanding and will,
I actually say nothing more than that a watch, a ship, a
regiment, are related to the watchmaker, the shipbuilder, the
commanding officer in the same way that the sensible world
(or everything that underlies this complex of appearances) is
related to the unknown; and in saying this I don’t claim to
know the unknown as it is •in itself, but only as it is •for me
or •in relation to the world of which I am a part Such knowledge is knowledge by analogy. This doesn’t
involve (as the word ‘analogy’ is commonly thought to do)
•an imperfect similarity of two things, but rather
•a perfect similarity of relations between the members
of two quite dissimilar pairs of things.13
By means of this analogy we are left with a concept of the
supreme being that is detailed enough for us, though we
have omitted from it everything that could characterize it
absolutely or in itself ; for we characterize only its relation
to the world and thus to ourselves, and that is all we need.
Hume’s attacks on those who want to determine this concept
absolutely, taking the materials for doing so from themselves
and the world, don’t affect my position; he can’t object
against me that if we give up the objective anthropomorphism
of the concept of the supreme being we have nothing left.



Prolegomena, Immanuel Kant, pgs 66-67
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets ... nt1783.pdf

And here:

Thus I see before me order and design in nature, and need not resort to speculation to assure myself of their reality, but to explain them I have to presuppose a Deity as their cause; and then since the inference from an effect to a definite cause is always uncertain and doubtful, especially to a cause so precise and so perfectly defined as we have to conceive in God, hence the highest degree of certainty to which this pre-supposition can be brought is that it is the most rational opinion for us men. * On the other hand, a requirement of pure practical reason is based on a duty, that of making something (the summum bonum) the object of my will so as to promote it with all my powers; in which case I must suppose its possibility and, consequently, also the conditions necessary thereto, namely, God, freedom, and immortality; since I cannot prove these by my speculative reason, although neither can I refute them.

Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Practical Reason (p. 113). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

In the latter quotation, Kant admits he can't refute the possibility of God as you argue you have done.

[Prismatic567]

I did not state I agreed with Kant totally, not where he kept the term 'God' in the deistic sense. Note deistic not theistic.

Kant's argument is the idea of God is an illusion if claimed to be empirically real, i.e. to the extent of a God that listens and answers prayers, plus created and sustaining the Universe.

The only provision by Kant for the idea of God is for the purpose of morality where God is absolute [not real].

Note:
Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195263

To Kant, the idea of God should never be reified as real, but merely adapted for the purpose of morality and absolute moral laws.

Perhaps you are banking on the following quote;

For in order to arrive at such insight it must make use of Principles which, in fact, extend only to Objects of Possible Experience,
and which, if also applied to what cannot be an Object of Experience, always really change this into an Appearance,
thus rendering all Practical Extension [i.e. morality] of Pure Reason impossible.
I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.
-Bxxx -Kant in CPR

The above is merely a point in the Preface. The details of the above statement do not provide for any belief i.e. God exists as real. The term 'deny' 'faith' are not the direct translation of their German equivalent.
The main purpose in this case is to make room for the Practical [i.e. Morality] which has nothing to do with any real God but merely with an ontological God [illusion] with the attribute of absolute perfection.

Your use of the term "real" above continues to suggest that you are conflating Kant's epistemology with ontology. Kant abandons objective anthropomorphism and possibility of knowing God absolutely or as God as God is in God's self. He does not give up the possibility of Supreme Being as he elucidates here:

When we connect the command to avoid all transcendent
judgments of pure reason with the apparently conflicting
command to proceed to concepts that lie beyond the domain
of immanent (empirical) use, we become aware that the
two commands can subsist together, but only right on the
boundary of all permitted use of reason—for this boundary
belongs equally to the domain of experience and to that of the
creations of thought [= Ideas]. And through that awareness
we also learn how these Ideas, remarkable as they are, serve
merely for marking the boundaries of human reason. On
the one hand they give warning •not to go on extending
our empirical knowledge with no thought of boundaries, as
though nothing but sheer world remained for us to know,
and yet on the other hand •not to overstep the bounds of
experience and want to make judgments about things beyond
them, as things in themselves.
But we stop at this boundary if we limit our judgment
merely to how •the world may relate to •a being whose very
concept lies beyond the reach of any knowledge we are
capable of within the world. For we don’t then attribute to the
supreme being in itself any of the properties through which
we represent objects of experience, and so we avoid dogmatic
anthropomorphism; but we attribute those properties to the
supreme being’s relation to the world, thus allowing ourselves
a symbolic anthropomorphism, which in fact concerns only
language and not the object itself.
When I say that we are compelled to view the world as
if it were the work of a supreme understanding and will,
I actually say nothing more than that a watch, a ship, a
regiment, are related to the watchmaker, the shipbuilder, the
commanding officer in the same way that the sensible world
(or everything that underlies this complex of appearances) is
related to the unknown; and in saying this I don’t claim to
know the unknown as it is •in itself, but only as it is •for me
or •in relation to the world of which I am a part Such knowledge is knowledge by analogy. This doesn’t
involve (as the word ‘analogy’ is commonly thought to do)
•an imperfect similarity of two things, but rather
•a perfect similarity of relations between the members
of two quite dissimilar pairs of things.13
By means of this analogy we are left with a concept of the
supreme being that is detailed enough for us, though we
have omitted from it everything that could characterize it
absolutely or in itself ; for we characterize only its relation
to the world and thus to ourselves, and that is all we need.
Hume’s attacks on those who want to determine this concept
absolutely, taking the materials for doing so from themselves
and the world, don’t affect my position; he can’t object
against me that if we give up the objective anthropomorphism
of the concept of the supreme being we have nothing left.



Prolegomena, Immanuel Kant, pgs 66-67
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets ... nt1783.pdf

And here:

Thus I see before me order and design in nature, and need not resort to speculation to assure myself of their reality, but to explain them I have to presuppose a Deity as their cause; and then since the inference from an effect to a definite cause is always uncertain and doubtful, especially to a cause so precise and so perfectly defined as we have to conceive in God, hence the highest degree of certainty to which this pre-supposition can be brought is that it is the most rational opinion for us men. * On the other hand, a requirement of pure practical reason is based on a duty, that of making something (the summum bonum) the object of my will so as to promote it with all my powers; in which case I must suppose its possibility and, consequently, also the conditions necessary thereto, namely, God, freedom, and immortality; since I cannot prove these by my speculative reason, although neither can I refute them.

Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Practical Reason (p. 113). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

In the latter quotation, Kant admits he can't refute the possibility of God as you argue you have done.

Did you just pick up someone's interpretation or you did read the above related books to understand them thoroughly?
There are many translations of the Critique of Practical Reason, can you include the translators' names as well.

If the above are cherry picked for the purpose by someone or yourself, they do not reflect the whole context.


Re the quote from the the Critique of Practical Reason, here the translation from Abbot;

the Critique of Practical Reason;
240 PtI-BkII-ChapII-VII
{BOOK_2|CHAPTER_2 paragraph 85}
VIII. Of Belief from a Requirement of Pure Reason.

A Want or Requirement of Pure Reason in its Speculative use leads only to a Hypothesis; that of Pure Practical Reason to a Postulate;
for in the former [Speculative] case I ascend from the result as High as I please in the Series of Causes, not in order to give Objective Reality to the result (e.g., the causal connection of things and changes in the World),
but in order thoroughly to satisfy my inquiring Reason in respect of it.
Thus I see before me Order and Design in Nature, and need not resort to Speculation to assure myself of their Reality, but to explain them I have to presuppose a Deity as their Cause;
and then since the inference from an Effect to a definite Cause is always uncertain and doubtful, especially to a Cause so precise and so perfectly defined as we have to conceive in God,
hence the Highest Degree of certainty to which this pre-supposition can be brought is that it is the most Rational Opinion for us men. *

On the other hand, a Requirement of Pure Practical Reason is based on a Duty, that of making something (the summum bonum) the Object of my Will so as to promote it with all my powers;
in which case I must suppose its Possibility and, consequently, also the Conditions necessary thereto, namely, God, Freedom, and Immortality; since I cannot prove these by my Speculative Reason, although neither can I refute them.
Critique of Practical Reason - Translator Abbot

It is obvious from the above Kant stated the presupposed deity is not an objective reality, i.e. cannot be real empirically.

On the other hand, for the purpose of Pure Practical Reason, God, Freedom and Immortality MUST be supposed [assumed]. On that basis, Kant could not refute them.

In the above, Kant definitely did not accept God as objectively real within the empirical world.

Note the quote and many similar quotes, where Kant distinctively differentiated what is empirical from the moral. To mix nature with moral laws [God and its law] is the mother of all illusion.

For whereas, so far as Nature is concerned, Experience supplies the Rules and is the source of Truth, in respect of the Moral Laws it [Nature] is, alas, the mother of Illusion!
Nothing is more reprehensible than to derive the Laws prescribing what ought to be done from what is done, or to impose upon them the Limits by which the latter is circumscribed. Critique of Pure Reason A318 - Smith

I have already quoted Kant many times on how he demonstrated the transcendental idea when reified as real is an illusion.

The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism.
There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. 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.
B397 - Critique of Pure Reason -Smith

For Kant the transcendental idea of God is a useful illusion for the purpose of Pure Practical Reason, i.e. Morality and Ethics.

The point in the Prolegomena is the same for Kant, where it is impossible for God to be real but then must be presupposed for the purpose of Morality - Practical Reason.

Btw, in terms of God, Kant is a deist [I am very aware of that], not a theist who believe in the personal God.
Kant is a deist [with immortality and freedom] merely in relation to Morality only.

[Prismatic567]

Note the following from the Prolegomena [your link above].
Note the Prolegomena is merely an explanation for the Critique of Pure Reason.

By means of this analogy we are left with a concept of the
supreme being that is detailed enough for us, though we
have omitted from it [Supreme Being] everything that could characterize it
absolutely or in itself;
for we characterize only its relation
to the world and thus to ourselves, and that is all we need.
Prolegomena - Johnatan Bennett.

Note the last part,
"we have omitted it from everything that is absolute or in-itself", i.e. from reality.
Kant stated it is useful only for humans [theists and deists] in relation to the world, and in context that is related to Morality and not to objective reality of the empirical world.
This is in the whole context of Kant's philosophy.

[felix dakat]

I did not state I agreed with Kant totally, not where he kept the term 'God' in the deistic sense. Note deistic not theistic.

Kant's argument is the idea of God is an illusion if claimed to be empirically real, i.e. to the extent of a God that listens and answers prayers, plus created and sustaining the Universe.

The only provision by Kant for the idea of God is for the purpose of morality where God is absolute [not real].

Note:
Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=195263

To Kant, the idea of God should never be reified as real, but merely adapted for the purpose of morality and absolute moral laws.

Perhaps you are banking on the following quote;

For in order to arrive at such insight it must make use of Principles which, in fact, extend only to Objects of Possible Experience,
and which, if also applied to what cannot be an Object of Experience, always really change this into an Appearance,
thus rendering all Practical Extension [i.e. morality] of Pure Reason impossible.
I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.
-Bxxx -Kant in CPR

The above is merely a point in the Preface. The details of the above statement do not provide for any belief i.e. God exists as real. The term 'deny' 'faith' are not the direct translation of their German equivalent.
The main purpose in this case is to make room for the Practical [i.e. Morality] which has nothing to do with any real God but merely with an ontological God [illusion] with the attribute of absolute perfection.

Your use of the term "real" above continues to suggest that you are conflating Kant's epistemology with ontology. Kant abandons objective anthropomorphism and possibility of knowing God absolutely or as God as God is in God's self. He does not give up the possibility of Supreme Being as he elucidates here:

When we connect the command to avoid all transcendent
judgments of pure reason with the apparently conflicting
command to proceed to concepts that lie beyond the domain
of immanent (empirical) use, we become aware that the
two commands can subsist together, but only right on the
boundary of all permitted use of reason—for this boundary
belongs equally to the domain of experience and to that of the
creations of thought [= Ideas]. And through that awareness
we also learn how these Ideas, remarkable as they are, serve
merely for marking the boundaries of human reason. On
the one hand they give warning •not to go on extending
our empirical knowledge with no thought of boundaries, as
though nothing but sheer world remained for us to know,
and yet on the other hand •not to overstep the bounds of
experience and want to make judgments about things beyond
them, as things in themselves.
But we stop at this boundary if we limit our judgment
merely to how •the world may relate to •a being whose very
concept lies beyond the reach of any knowledge we are
capable of within the world. For we don’t then attribute to the
supreme being in itself any of the properties through which
we represent objects of experience, and so we avoid dogmatic
anthropomorphism; but we attribute those properties to the
supreme being’s relation to the world, thus allowing ourselves
a symbolic anthropomorphism, which in fact concerns only
language and not the object itself.
When I say that we are compelled to view the world as
if it were the work of a supreme understanding and will,
I actually say nothing more than that a watch, a ship, a
regiment, are related to the watchmaker, the shipbuilder, the
commanding officer in the same way that the sensible world
(or everything that underlies this complex of appearances) is
related to the unknown; and in saying this I don’t claim to
know the unknown as it is •in itself, but only as it is •for me
or •in relation to the world of which I am a part Such knowledge is knowledge by analogy. This doesn’t
involve (as the word ‘analogy’ is commonly thought to do)
•an imperfect similarity of two things, but rather
•a perfect similarity of relations between the members
of two quite dissimilar pairs of things.13
By means of this analogy we are left with a concept of the
supreme being that is detailed enough for us, though we
have omitted from it everything that could characterize it
absolutely or in itself ; for we characterize only its relation
to the world and thus to ourselves, and that is all we need.
Hume’s attacks on those who want to determine this concept
absolutely, taking the materials for doing so from themselves
and the world, don’t affect my position; he can’t object
against me that if we give up the objective anthropomorphism
of the concept of the supreme being we have nothing left.



Prolegomena, Immanuel Kant, pgs 66-67
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets ... nt1783.pdf

And here:

Thus I see before me order and design in nature, and need not resort to speculation to assure myself of their reality, but to explain them I have to presuppose a Deity as their cause; and then since the inference from an effect to a definite cause is always uncertain and doubtful, especially to a cause so precise and so perfectly defined as we have to conceive in God, hence the highest degree of certainty to which this pre-supposition can be brought is that it is the most rational opinion for us men. * On the other hand, a requirement of pure practical reason is based on a duty, that of making something (the summum bonum) the object of my will so as to promote it with all my powers; in which case I must suppose its possibility and, consequently, also the conditions necessary thereto, namely, God, freedom, and immortality; since I cannot prove these by my speculative reason, although neither can I refute them.

Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Practical Reason (p. 113). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

In the latter quotation, Kant admits he can't refute the possibility of God as you argue you have done.

Did you just pick up someone's interpretation or you did read the above related books to understand them thoroughly?
There are many translations of the Critique of Practical Reason, can you include the translators' names as well.

If the above are cherry picked for the purpose by someone or yourself, they do not reflect the whole context.


Re the quote from the the Critique of Practical Reason, here the translation from Abbot;

the Critique of Practical Reason;
240 PtI-BkII-ChapII-VII
{BOOK_2|CHAPTER_2 paragraph 85}
VIII. Of Belief from a Requirement of Pure Reason.

A Want or Requirement of Pure Reason in its Speculative use leads only to a Hypothesis; that of Pure Practical Reason to a Postulate;
for in the former [Speculative] case I ascend from the result as High as I please in the Series of Causes, not in order to give Objective Reality to the result (e.g., the causal connection of things and changes in the World),
but in order thoroughly to satisfy my inquiring Reason in respect of it.
Thus I see before me Order and Design in Nature, and need not resort to Speculation to assure myself of their Reality, but to explain them I have to presuppose a Deity as their Cause;
and then since the inference from an Effect to a definite Cause is always uncertain and doubtful, especially to a Cause so precise and so perfectly defined as we have to conceive in God,
hence the Highest Degree of certainty to which this pre-supposition can be brought is that it is the most Rational Opinion for us men. *

On the other hand, a Requirement of Pure Practical Reason is based on a Duty, that of making something (the summum bonum) the Object of my Will so as to promote it with all my powers;
in which case I must suppose its Possibility and, consequently, also the Conditions necessary thereto, namely, God, Freedom, and Immortality; since I cannot prove these by my Speculative Reason, although neither can I refute them.
Critique of Practical Reason - Translator Abbot

It is obvious from the above Kant stated the presupposed deity is not an objective reality, i.e. cannot be real empirically.

On the other hand, for the purpose of Pure Practical Reason, God, Freedom and Immortality MUST be supposed [assumed]. On that basis, Kant could not refute them.

In the above, Kant definitely did not accept God as objectively real within the empirical world.

Note the quote and many similar quotes, where Kant distinctively differentiated what is empirical from the moral. To mix nature with moral laws [God and its law] is the mother of all illusion.

For whereas, so far as Nature is concerned, Experience supplies the Rules and is the source of Truth, in respect of the Moral Laws it [Nature] is, alas, the mother of Illusion!
Nothing is more reprehensible than to derive the Laws prescribing what ought to be done from what is done, or to impose upon them the Limits by which the latter is circumscribed. Critique of Pure Reason A318 - Smith

I have already quoted Kant many times on how he demonstrated the transcendental idea when reified as real is an illusion.

The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism.
There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. 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.
B397 - Critique of Pure Reason -Smith

For Kant the transcendental idea of God is a useful illusion for the purpose of Pure Practical Reason, i.e. Morality and Ethics.

The point in the Prolegomena is the same for Kant, where it is impossible for God to be real but then must be presupposed for the purpose of Morality - Practical Reason.

Btw, in terms of God, Kant is a deist [I am very aware of that], not a theist who believe in the personal God.
Kant is a deist [with immortality and freedom] merely in relation to Morality only.

I provided a link to the translation of the Prolegomena pdf. The translation by Abbot changes nothing. Talk about cherry-pickng, your emboldened phrases ignore the thrust of Kant’s argument that the presupposition of a Deity as the cause of the order and design of nature is “the most Rational Opinion for us men.” But yeah that doesn’t give us God as a phenomena let alone thing-in-itself . Thank you for acknowledging that Kant said he could not refute God on the basis of practical reason. On the other hand,I am unaware that Kant ever stated as you do that God was a useful illusion.
So let's look at your statement “In the above, Kant definitely did not accept God as objectively real in the empirical world.” Empirical observation doesn't give us objects in the sense of things as they are in themselves. It gives us phenomena from which we infer the existence of realities the absolute knowledge of which we do not possess. So we have absolute knowledge of nothing through empirical observation. And God is a special case by any criteria. So it's hardly surprising that we don't have direct empirical phenomena substantiating God. The Ancients realized this as is evident from the concept of logos which goes back at least to Heraclitus. There must be some mediating being or image that intimates Ultimate Reality, i.e. God which is unknowable as it is in itself. For Anselm it was the idea of God in the mind. For Kant it was the categorical imperative.

The sense in which Kant was a theist he makes quite clear in the following passage which speaks of God’s requirements, commandments and emotional reactions to humans:

Conscious of their impotence in the cognition of supersensible things, and though they [the people of the universal church] allow every honor to be paid to faith in these things (as the faith which must carry conviction for them universally), human beings are yet not easily persuaded that steadfast zeal in the conduct of a morally good life is all that God requires of them to be his well-pleasing subjects in his Kingdom. They cannot indeed conceive their obligation except as directed to some service or other which they must perform for God - wherein what matters is not the intrinsic worth of their actions as much as, rather, that they are performed for God to please him through passive obedience, however morally indifferent the actions might be in themselves. It does not enter their heads that, whenever they fulfill their duties toward human beings (themselves and others), by that very fact they also conform to God's commands; hence, that in all their doings and nondoings, so far as these have reference to morality, they are constantly in the service of God; and that it is absolutely impossible to serve him more intimately in some other way (for they can act and exercise their influence on no other than earthly beings, not on God). Since every great lord of this world has a special need of being honored by his subjects, and of being praised through signs of submissiveness; nor can he expect, without this, as much compliance with his orders from his subjects as he needs to rule over them effectively; and, in addition, however reasonable a human being may be, he always finds an immediate pleasure in attestations of honor: so we treat duty, to the extent that it is equally God's command, as the transaction of an affoir of God, not of humans; and thus arises the concept of a religion of divine service instead of the concept of a purely moral religion.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spacesho ... reason.pdf

[Prismatic567]

I provided a link to the translation of the Prolegomena pdf. The translation by Abbot changes nothing. Talk about cherry-picking, your emboldened phrases ignore the thrust of Kant’s argument that the presupposition of a Deity as the cause of the order and design of nature is “the most Rational Opinion for us men.”
But yeah that doesn’t give us God as a phenomena let alone thing-in-itself .
Thank you for acknowledging that Kant said he could not refute God on the basis of practical reason.
On the other hand,I am unaware that Kant ever stated as you do that God was a useful illusion.

I was not cherry-picking but merely provided another translation of what you quoted.

Btw, do you know the meaning of 'opinion' and how Kant used that term:

Generally:

Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
- Google Dictionary

Kant did not give much confidence to what is opinion, given its above literal meaning. However Kant did emphasize the distinction between 'opinion' 'belief' and 'knowledge - truth - fact'. 'Opinions' are the lowest grade of thoughts.

Note [mine];

Opinions and probable Judgments as to what belongs to Things can be propounded only in explanation of what is actually Given, or as consequences that follow in accordance with Empirical Laws from what underlies the actually Given. They are therefore concerned only with the Series of the Objects of Experience.
Outside this field [empirical], to form opinions is merely to play with thoughts. For we should then have to presuppose yet another opinion -- the opinion that we may perhaps arrive, at the Truth by a road that is uncertain.
A775 B803 - CPR -Smith

So Kant's “the most Rational Opinion for us men” is merely the best guess any one can come up with.

Kant demonstrated the thing-in-itself is a transcendental idea which is an illusion which is reified as a real God [ending with an illusion instead].

According to Kant, the transcendental idea of the thing-in-itself [illusion] as 'God' is very useful for the purpose of morality.

Kant stated, one can have regulative use for the idea [illusion] of a God, but not for constitutive use [empirical implications].
Note Kant always use the term 'assumption' presupposed, and the like to indicate God is merely a play of thoughts and not a real fact, knowledge or truth.

The assumption of a Supreme Intelligence, as the one and only Cause of the Universe, though in the Idea alone, can therefore always benefit Reason and can never injure it.
Thus if, in studying the shape of the earth (which is round, but somewhat flattened)# of the mountains, seas, etc., we assume it to be the outcome of wise purposes on the part of an Author of the World, we are enabled to make in this way a number of discoveries.

And provided we restrict ourselves to a merely Regulative Use of this Principle, even error cannot do us any serious harm. A687 B715 - CPR - Smith

The above is like Newton who assumed God exists [he believed God is real] and therefrom discovered his useful theories for mankind. Newton claimed to believe God is real, but the reality on hindsight and factually was, Newton was merely making an assumption of a God in his theses.

So let's look at your statement “In the above, Kant definitely did not accept God as objectively real in the empirical world.”
Empirical observation doesn't give us objects in the sense of things as they are in themselves. It gives us phenomena from which we infer the existence of realities the absolute knowledge of which we do not possess. So we have absolute knowledge of nothing through empirical observation.

The Given and empirical knowledge of the Given is what is real.
The thing-in-itself is an illusion when reified based on the most rational opinion humans can inferred.

Absolutely absolute knowledge, i.e. thing-in-itself cannot exists as real, they are illusion when reified.

And God is a special case by any criteria. So it's hardly surprising that we don't have direct empirical phenomena substantiating God. The Ancients realized this as is evident from the concept of logos which goes back at least to Heraclitus. There must be some mediating being or image that intimates Ultimate Reality, i.e. God which is unknowable as it is in itself. For Anselm it was the idea of God in the mind. For Kant it was the categorical imperative.

Nope, your "For Kant it was the categorical imperative" is totally off point.
For Kant, it is the transcendental idea [void of empirical] that is a thing-in-itself [totally unconditional] which an illusion but theists reified it as a real God.

Kant [deist not theist] relied on the idea of God to support his moral theories.
It is not that Kant cannot refute God as real re his Practical Reason.
As explained he is merely using the idea of God [an illusion] as the best opinion for his moral framework.

Kant have another term the absolutely absolute i.e. the Ens Realissimum. He could have used this term for his morality instead to the messy term 'God'.
Note Kant was warned by his employer [University] on his critique of the idea of God, thus he has to show some positive views of God. Thus his deism and not theism. I believe Kant was a closet atheist.

For St. Anselm, it is the Ontological God which Kant refuted.

The sense in which Kant was a theist he makes quite clear in the following passage which speaks of God’s requirements, commandments and emotional reactions to humans:

Conscious of their impotence in the cognition of supersensible things, and though they [the people of the universal church] allow every honor to be paid to faith in these things (as the faith which must carry conviction for them universally), human beings are yet not easily persuaded that steadfast zeal in the conduct of a morally good life is all that God requires of them to be his well-pleasing subjects in his Kingdom. They cannot indeed conceive their obligation except as directed to some service or other which they must perform for God - wherein what matters is not the intrinsic worth of their actions as much as, rather, that they are performed for God to please him through passive obedience, however morally indifferent the actions might be in themselves. It does not enter their heads that, whenever they fulfill their duties toward human beings (themselves and others), by that very fact they also conform to God's commands; hence, that in all their doings and nondoings, so far as these have reference to morality, they are constantly in the service of God; and that it is absolutely impossible to serve him more intimately in some other way (for they can act and exercise their influence on no other than earthly beings, not on God). Since every great lord of this world has a special need of being honored by his subjects, and of being praised through signs of submissiveness; nor can he expect, without this, as much compliance with his orders from his subjects as he needs to rule over them effectively; and, in addition, however reasonable a human being may be, he always finds an immediate pleasure in attestations of honor: so we treat duty, to the extent that it is equally God's command, as the transaction of an affoir of God, not of humans; and thus arises the concept of a religion of divine service instead of the concept of a purely moral religion.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spacesho ... reason.pdf

Nope! Kant was not a theist, he condemned theism.
Rather Kant was a deist who believed in a reasoned-God, not a real God.
Given the threat to his career, I believe Kant is more likely a closet atheist.

The above is from a Kant's book which condemned theistic religions, especially organized Christianity by the Schools and their theologians with their corrupted morality instead of a purely moral religion.

Wherever Kant used [assumed, presupposed, presumed] the term 'God' is it solely for the purpose of his Morality Framework and has nothing to do with any claim that God is possible to be real.

Thus your above quote is pointless.

Btw, note my alternative view why theists believe in God as real.
The reason is due to the very strong impulse of the existential crisis inherent in ALL humans that drove and will drive the majority into theism. The basis is thus due to existential psychology.
The idea of God is merely a play of thoughts that happened to be very effective in soothing the terrible pains from the inherent existential crisis.

[felix dakat]

I provided a link to the translation of the Prolegomena pdf. The translation by Abbot changes nothing. Talk about cherry-picking, your emboldened phrases ignore the thrust of Kant’s argument that the presupposition of a Deity as the cause of the order and design of nature is “the most Rational Opinion for us men.”
But yeah that doesn’t give us God as a phenomena let alone thing-in-itself .
Thank you for acknowledging that Kant said he could not refute God on the basis of practical reason.
On the other hand,I am unaware that Kant ever stated as you do that God was a useful illusion.

I was not cherry-picking but merely provided another translation of what you quoted.

Btw, do you know the meaning of 'opinion' and how Kant used that term:

Generally:

Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
- Google Dictionary

Kant did not give much confidence to what is opinion, given its above literal meaning. However Kant did emphasize the distinction between 'opinion' 'belief' and 'knowledge - truth - fact'. 'Opinions' are the lowest grade of thoughts.

Note [mine];

Opinions and probable Judgments as to what belongs to Things can be propounded only in explanation of what is actually Given, or as consequences that follow in accordance with Empirical Laws from what underlies the actually Given. They are therefore concerned only with the Series of the Objects of Experience.
Outside this field [empirical], to form opinions is merely to play with thoughts. For we should then have to presuppose yet another opinion -- the opinion that we may perhaps arrive, at the Truth by a road that is uncertain.
A775 B803 - CPR -Smith

So Kant's “the most Rational Opinion for us men” is merely the best guess any one can come up with.

Kant demonstrated the thing-in-itself is a transcendental idea which is an illusion which is reified as a real God [ending with an illusion instead].

According to Kant, the transcendental idea of the thing-in-itself [illusion] as 'God' is very useful for the purpose of morality.

Kant stated, one can have regulative use for the idea [illusion] of a God, but not for constitutive use [empirical implications].
Note Kant always use the term 'assumption' presupposed, and the like to indicate God is merely a play of thoughts and not a real fact, knowledge or truth.

The assumption of a Supreme Intelligence, as the one and only Cause of the Universe, though in the Idea alone, can therefore always benefit Reason and can never injure it.
Thus if, in studying the shape of the earth (which is round, but somewhat flattened)# of the mountains, seas, etc., we assume it to be the outcome of wise purposes on the part of an Author of the World, we are enabled to make in this way a number of discoveries.

And provided we restrict ourselves to a merely Regulative Use of this Principle, even error cannot do us any serious harm. A687 B715 - CPR - Smith

The above is like Newton who assumed God exists [he believed God is real] and therefrom discovered his useful theories for mankind. Newton claimed to believe God is real, but the reality on hindsight and factually was, Newton was merely making an assumption of a God in his theses.

So let's look at your statement “In the above, Kant definitely did not accept God as objectively real in the empirical world.”
Empirical observation doesn't give us objects in the sense of things as they are in themselves. It gives us phenomena from which we infer the existence of realities the absolute knowledge of which we do not possess. So we have absolute knowledge of nothing through empirical observation.

The Given and empirical knowledge of the Given is what is real.
The thing-in-itself is an illusion when reified based on the most rational opinion humans can inferred.

Absolutely absolute knowledge, i.e. thing-in-itself cannot exists as real, they are illusion when reified.

And God is a special case by any criteria. So it's hardly surprising that we don't have direct empirical phenomena substantiating God. The Ancients realized this as is evident from the concept of logos which goes back at least to Heraclitus. There must be some mediating being or image that intimates Ultimate Reality, i.e. God which is unknowable as it is in itself. For Anselm it was the idea of God in the mind. For Kant it was the categorical imperative.

Nope, your "For Kant it was the categorical imperative" is totally off point.
For Kant, it is the transcendental idea [void of empirical] that is a thing-in-itself [totally unconditional] which an illusion but theists reified it as a real God.

Kant [deist not theist] relied on the idea of God to support his moral theories.
It is not that Kant cannot refute God as real re his Practical Reason.
As explained he is merely using the idea of God [an illusion] as the best opinion for his moral framework.

Kant have another term the absolutely absolute i.e. the Ens Realissimum. He could have used this term for his morality instead to the messy term 'God'.
Note Kant was warned by his employer [University] on his critique of the idea of God, thus he has to show some positive views of God. Thus his deism and not theism. I believe Kant was a closet atheist.

For St. Anselm, it is the Ontological God which Kant refuted.

The sense in which Kant was a theist he makes quite clear in the following passage which speaks of God’s requirements, commandments and emotional reactions to humans:

Conscious of their impotence in the cognition of supersensible things, and though they [the people of the universal church] allow every honor to be paid to faith in these things (as the faith which must carry conviction for them universally), human beings are yet not easily persuaded that steadfast zeal in the conduct of a morally good life is all that God requires of them to be his well-pleasing subjects in his Kingdom. They cannot indeed conceive their obligation except as directed to some service or other which they must perform for God - wherein what matters is not the intrinsic worth of their actions as much as, rather, that they are performed for God to please him through passive obedience, however morally indifferent the actions might be in themselves. It does not enter their heads that, whenever they fulfill their duties toward human beings (themselves and others), by that very fact they also conform to God's commands; hence, that in all their doings and nondoings, so far as these have reference to morality, they are constantly in the service of God; and that it is absolutely impossible to serve him more intimately in some other way (for they can act and exercise their influence on no other than earthly beings, not on God). Since every great lord of this world has a special need of being honored by his subjects, and of being praised through signs of submissiveness; nor can he expect, without this, as much compliance with his orders from his subjects as he needs to rule over them effectively; and, in addition, however reasonable a human being may be, he always finds an immediate pleasure in attestations of honor: so we treat duty, to the extent that it is equally God's command, as the transaction of an affoir of God, not of humans; and thus arises the concept of a religion of divine service instead of the concept of a purely moral religion.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spacesho ... reason.pdf

Nope! Kant was not a theist, he condemned theism.
Rather Kant was a deist who believed in a reasoned-God, not a real God.
Given the threat to his career, I believe Kant is more likely a closet atheist.

The above is from a Kant's book which condemned theistic religions, especially organized Christianity by the Schools and their theologians with their corrupted morality instead of a purely moral religion.

Wherever Kant used [assumed, presupposed, presumed] the term 'God' is it solely for the purpose of his Morality Framework and has nothing to do with any claim that God is possible to be real.

Thus your above quote is pointless.

Btw, note my alternative view why theists believe in God as real.
The reason is due to the very strong impulse of the existential crisis inherent in ALL humans that drove and will drive the majority into theism. The basis is thus due to existential psychology.
The idea of God is merely a play of thoughts that happened to be very effective in soothing the terrible pains from the inherent existential crisis.

I find your statement that Kant's own description of his religious belief is pointless a bit ironic.

Your position on Kant is far from his stated intention in writing his first Critique:

“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

As I see it, in spite of Kant’s criticisms of the classical arguments for God's existence he's neither an atheist nor does he think that God is an impossibility like you do. From my reading, Kant both believes in God and holds that the belief can be rationally justified. To Kant, while the traditional arguments for God's existence are based on errors, moral theology is perfectly possible. The basis of Kant's moral proof of God existence is significantly different from the speculative proofs. It doesn't start from a concept or from a fact about the world but from an immediately experienced moral situation. According to Kant a moral agent feels called upon to achieve "the exact harmony of happiness with morality", and knows that he can't do it by his own unaided efforts. So, insofar as he commits himself to action he shows his belief in a moral author of the universe, i.e. God. Thus, Kant links affirmation of God's existence is with the practice of a moral life.

Kant was critical of Hume's deism and he believed in God as the guarantor of morality. That puts him in the category of theist, in my opinion.

[Prismatic567]

I find your statement that Kant's own description of his religious belief is pointless a bit ironic.

Why not, there was actual circumstantial evidences for that hypothesis that Kant was a closet atheist.

Note this from A C Grayling [a reputable philosopher];

Immanuel Kant was an atheist.
This claim will jar with those who wish to conscript Kant into the army of the faithful, and who point out quite rightly that he believed we should conduct our moral lives as if we had free will and immortal souls answerable to a divine judge who will reward the good and punish the bad.
But these three ideas freedom, immortality, God are, he said, artefacts of our thought about morality, which we postulate not in order to provide grounds for morality, but to answer the moral sceptic's question, "why should I bother with morality at all?"

In his treatise Religion Within The Bounds of Reason Alone, Kant wrote: "So far as morality is based upon the conception of man as a free agent who, just because he is free, binds himself through his reason to unconditioned laws, it stands in need neither of the idea of another Being over him, for him to apprehend his duty, nor of an incentive other than the law itself, for him to do his duty." But he then added that man must have an end in view in order to act at all, not as a ground for acting but as the point of acting. To provide such an end, which is the same things as answering the question "what is to result from this right conduct of ours?", we must manufacture for ourselves "an idea of an object which takes the formal condition of all such ends as we ought to have (our duty) and combines it with whatever is conditioned, and in harmony with duty, in all the ends which we do have (happiness proportioned to obedience to duty) — that is to say, the idea of a highest good in the world for whose possibility we must postulate a higher, moral, most holy, and omnipotent Being which alone can unite the two elements of this highest good."

In short, morality suggests the fiction of a rewarding or punishing "higher Being". Kant later adds that a rational person pondering what kind of world would best accommodate the possibility of morality (did this inspire John Rawls' idea of the 'initial position'?) would be sure to invent for it just such a deity; and this precisely summarises Kant's own view.
https://newhumanist.org.uk/996/reasonable-bounds

Your position on Kant is far from his stated intention in writing his first Critique:

“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

I have explained the above statement elsewhere and many have also explained why the above cannot be taken literally in English due to the translation of the German terms translated for 'deny' and 'faith'.

The 'make room for faith' [for Kant] is the the provision for morality to work effectively which has nothing to do with real things and epistemology.
You'll need to be familiar FULLY with how Kant's Framework of Morality works so as to understand why Kant needed to assume God.

As I see it, in spite of Kant’s criticisms of the classical arguments for God's existence he's neither an atheist nor does he think that God is an impossibility like you do. From my reading, Kant both believes in God and holds that the belief can be rationally justified. To Kant, while the traditional arguments for God's existence are based on errors, moral theology is perfectly possible.
The basis of Kant's moral proof of God existence is significantly different from the speculative proofs. It doesn't start from a concept or from a fact about the world but from an immediately experienced moral situation. According to Kant a moral agent feels called upon to achieve "the exact harmony of happiness with morality", and knows that he can't do it by his own unaided efforts. So, insofar as he commits himself to action he shows his belief in a moral author of the universe, i.e. God. Thus, Kant links affirmation of God's existence is with the practice of a moral life.

Kant was critical of Hume's deism and he believed in God as the guarantor of morality. That puts him in the category of theist, in my opinion.

Your opinion is totally off.
You keep repeating the same falsehood. Kant is NOT a theist, Kant is a Deist, this difference is very critical.
You'll need to solid evidence from Kant to justify your view.

As I had explained in the above posts [quotes from Kant], Kant assumed and presupposed a God to support his moral framework.
Kant never claimed there is a real God nor the possibility of a real God.

According to Kant the idea of God can be assumed within morality only.
There is no possibility the idea of God can be real, i.e. to bring within reality objective reality.
Kant emphasized a lot on 'possible experience' thus the possibility of being real, i.e. objective reality.

The reason is this. Possible Experience is that which can alone give Reality to our Concepts; in its absence a Concept is a mere Idea, without Truth, that is, without relation to any Object.
The possible Empirical Concept is therefore the Standard by which we must judge whether the Idea is a mere Idea and thought-entity, or whether it finds its Object in the world.
For we can say of anything that it is too large or too small relatively to something else, only if the former is required for the sake of the latter, and has to be adapted to it.
CPR - A489 B517 - Smith

The idea of God is merely an Idea [a transcendental idea] without Truth nor any relation to any object, i.e. impossible to be real;

in its absence a Concept [it - idea of God] is a mere Idea, without Truth, that is, without relation to any Object

Note my main argument is God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.

To Kant, the idea of God is a necessity for his moral framework.

The analogy is like an manufacturing company adopting a vision and mission of "ZERO DEFECT" [an ideal] for their products at all times.
This ideal of ZERO DEFECT is obviously an assumption which is impossible to achieve in reality.
However assuming this impossibility of the idea ZERO DEFECT will ensure the company strive for the OPTIMAL best the quality and thus giving customers the assurance they are getting the best possible.

Similarly to the analogy above, within Kant's morality, the idea of God is merely an ideal assumed but there is no way the idea of God can be real in reality.

[felix dakat]

I find your statement that Kant's own description of his religious belief is pointless a bit ironic.

Why not, there was actual circumstantial evidences for that hypothesis that Kant was a closet atheist.

Note this from A C Grayling [a reputable philosopher];

Immanuel Kant was an atheist.
This claim will jar with those who wish to conscript Kant into the army of the faithful, and who point out quite rightly that he believed we should conduct our moral lives as if we had free will and immortal souls answerable to a divine judge who will reward the good and punish the bad.
But these three ideas freedom, immortality, God are, he said, artefacts of our thought about morality, which we postulate not in order to provide grounds for morality, but to answer the moral sceptic's question, "why should I bother with morality at all?"

In his treatise Religion Within The Bounds of Reason Alone, Kant wrote: "So far as morality is based upon the conception of man as a free agent who, just because he is free, binds himself through his reason to unconditioned laws, it stands in need neither of the idea of another Being over him, for him to apprehend his duty, nor of an incentive other than the law itself, for him to do his duty." But he then added that man must have an end in view in order to act at all, not as a ground for acting but as the point of acting. To provide such an end, which is the same things as answering the question "what is to result from this right conduct of ours?", we must manufacture for ourselves "an idea of an object which takes the formal condition of all such ends as we ought to have (our duty) and combines it with whatever is conditioned, and in harmony with duty, in all the ends which we do have (happiness proportioned to obedience to duty) — that is to say, the idea of a highest good in the world for whose possibility we must postulate a higher, moral, most holy, and omnipotent Being which alone can unite the two elements of this highest good."

In short, morality suggests the fiction of a rewarding or punishing "higher Being". Kant later adds that a rational person pondering what kind of world would best accommodate the possibility of morality (did this inspire John Rawls' idea of the 'initial position'?) would be sure to invent for it just such a deity; and this precisely summarises Kant's own view.
https://newhumanist.org.uk/996/reasonable-bounds

Your position on Kant is far from his stated intention in writing his first Critique:

“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

I have explained the above statement elsewhere and many have also explained why the above cannot be taken literally in English due to the translation of the German terms translated for 'deny' and 'faith'.

The 'make room for faith' [for Kant] is the the provision for morality to work effectively which has nothing to do with real things and epistemology.
You'll need to be familiar FULLY with how Kant's Framework of Morality works so as to understand why Kant needed to assume God.

As I see it, in spite of Kant’s criticisms of the classical arguments for God's existence he's neither an atheist nor does he think that God is an impossibility like you do. From my reading, Kant both believes in God and holds that the belief can be rationally justified. To Kant, while the traditional arguments for God's existence are based on errors, moral theology is perfectly possible.
The basis of Kant's moral proof of God existence is significantly different from the speculative proofs. It doesn't start from a concept or from a fact about the world but from an immediately experienced moral situation. According to Kant a moral agent feels called upon to achieve "the exact harmony of happiness with morality", and knows that he can't do it by his own unaided efforts. So, insofar as he commits himself to action he shows his belief in a moral author of the universe, i.e. God. Thus, Kant links affirmation of God's existence is with the practice of a moral life.

Kant was critical of Hume's deism and he believed in God as the guarantor of morality. That puts him in the category of theist, in my opinion.

Your opinion is totally off.
You keep repeating the same falsehood. Kant is NOT a theist, Kant is a Deist, this difference is very critical.
You'll need to solid evidence from Kant to justify your view.

As I had explained in the above posts [quotes from Kant], Kant assumed and presupposed a God to support his moral framework.
Kant never claimed there is a real God nor the possibility of a real God.

According to Kant the idea of God can be assumed within morality only.
There is no possibility the idea of God can be real, i.e. to bring within reality objective reality.
Kant emphasized a lot on 'possible experience' thus the possibility of being real, i.e. objective reality.

The reason is this. Possible Experience is that which can alone give Reality to our Concepts; in its absence a Concept is a mere Idea, without Truth, that is, without relation to any Object.
The possible Empirical Concept is therefore the Standard by which we must judge whether the Idea is a mere Idea and thought-entity, or whether it finds its Object in the world.
For we can say of anything that it is too large or too small relatively to something else, only if the former is required for the sake of the latter, and has to be adapted to it.
CPR - A489 B517 - Smith

The idea of God is merely an Idea [a transcendental idea] without Truth nor any relation to any object, i.e. impossible to be real;

in its absence a Concept [it - idea of God] is a mere Idea, without Truth, that is, without relation to any Object

Note my main argument is God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.

To Kant, the idea of God is a necessity for his moral framework.

The analogy is like an manufacturing company adopting a vision and mission of "ZERO DEFECT" [an ideal] for their products at all times.
This ideal of ZERO DEFECT is obviously an assumption which is impossible to achieve in reality.
However assuming this impossibility of the idea ZERO DEFECT will ensure the company strive for the OPTIMAL best the quality and thus giving customers the assurance they are getting the best possible.

Similarly to the analogy above, within Kant's morality, the idea of God is merely an ideal assumed but there is no way the idea of God can be real in reality.

So let's see... Kant's actual statements are dismissed as "tongue and cheek" while conjecture about what he thought” in the closet” is given credence? Grayling's interpretation is possible although it's in a small minority as far as “reputable” published commentaries I've read on Kant are concerned.

[Prismatic567]

So let's see... Kant's actual statements are dismissed as "tongue and cheek" while conjecture about what he thought” in the closet” is given credence? Grayling's interpretation is possible although it's in a small minority as far as “reputable” published commentaries I've read on Kant are concerned.

Nope!
I have explained all the statements you produced re Kant, your views are straw-man[s] and out of context, i.e.

1. Deny knowledge ..make room for faith,
2. The idea of God is most rational OPINION for morality [Practical Reason].
3. Your personal opinion, Kant was a theist.. NO! NO! NO! Kant was a Deist.
4. Others?

I have countered all your above claims.
If you insist on the above, you'll need to produce solid evidence and arguments within the whole context of Kantian Philosophy.

Re Grayling's claimed 'Kant was an atheist' [closet] is not a conjecture.
Do you have an idea of the politico-religio climate during Kant's time. Kant was admonished DIRECTLY by the King, banned and was given warnings.

Kant faced with censorship when he attempted to publish the Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1792) because of the fear that the radical effects of the French Revolution would spread amongst Prussia as well. Kant managed to publish it through the theology department of the University of Jena.
He received an admonition directly from the King’s authority for this.
When he ignored the King’s warnings and published a second edition for his book, he was ultimately banned from publishing or publicly speaking about religion ever again. Kant later explained himself about this in his work, The Conflict of the Faculties (1798).
https://prussianhistory.com/immanuel-kant/

Given the above threatening situation, any intelligent, wise and rational person would pretend to please the authorities. This is what is happening in many Muslim-majority nations where atheists would pretend to be "theists" to avoid death or severe punishments for being an atheist.

Grayling gave his basis and evidence for his conclusion, read the whole article and tell me where he is wrong.

As far as associating Kant [deism] with God as in theism, there is only a small minority and this theistic group [compelled by confirmation bias] has not understood Kant's motive for the idea of God is purely for morality [Practical Reason] only. The most famous is Stephen Palmquist together with a few others [countable within all the fingers].

If you have read the whole range of Kant's philosophy, you will note Kant had a great detest for the idea of God, especially in the area of theism [personal living God]. His anti-theism triggered the King to admonish him directly. [see quote above]
On this basis, Kant's deism [reasoned God] is most likely a pretension to please the authorities.

As mentioned, instead of the term 'God', Kant had a more effective idea for his morality, i.e. the Ens Realissimum which is non-theistic.

[felix dakat]

So let's see... Kant's actual statements are dismissed as "tongue and cheek" while conjecture about what he thought” in the closet” is given credence? Grayling's interpretation is possible although it's in a small minority as far as “reputable” published commentaries I've read on Kant are concerned.

Nope!
I have explained all the statements you produced re Kant, your views are straw-man[s] and out of context, i.e.

1. Deny knowledge ..make room for faith,
2. The idea of God is most rational OPINION for morality [Practical Reason].
3. Your personal opinion, Kant was a theist.. NO! NO! NO! Kant was a Deist.
4. Others?

I have countered all your above claims.
If you insist on the above, you'll need to produce solid evidence and arguments within the whole context of Kantian Philosophy.

Re Grayling's claimed 'Kant was an atheist' [closet] is not a conjecture.
Do you have an idea of the politico-religio climate during Kant's time. Kant was admonished DIRECTLY by the King, banned and was given warnings.

Kant faced with censorship when he attempted to publish the Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1792) because of the fear that the radical effects of the French Revolution would spread amongst Prussia as well. Kant managed to publish it through the theology department of the University of Jena.
He received an admonition directly from the King’s authority for this.
When he ignored the King’s warnings and published a second edition for his book, he was ultimately banned from publishing or publicly speaking about religion ever again. Kant later explained himself about this in his work, The Conflict of the Faculties (1798).
https://prussianhistory.com/immanuel-kant/

Given the above threatening situation, any intelligent, wise and rational person would pretend to please the authorities. This is what is happening in many Muslim-majority nations where atheists would pretend to be "theists" to avoid death or severe punishments for being an atheist.

Grayling gave his basis and evidence for his conclusion, read the whole article and tell me where he is wrong.

As far as associating Kant [deism] with God as in theism, there is only a small minority and this theistic group [compelled by confirmation bias] has not understood Kant's motive for the idea of God is purely for morality [Practical Reason] only. The most famous is Stephen Palmquist together with a few others [countable within all the fingers].

If you have read the whole range of Kant's philosophy, you will note Kant had a great detest for the idea of God, especially in the area of theism [personal living God]. His anti-theism triggered the King to admonish him directly. [see quote above]
On this basis, Kant's deism [reasoned God] is most likely a pretension to please the authorities.

As mentioned, instead of the term 'God', Kant had a more effective idea for his morality, i.e. the Ens Realissimum which is non-theistic.

You seem to be absolutely sure of your interpretation. But, I find many astute commentators who seem support my interpretation. For example :

It is, thus, a profound irony that Kant is so commonly portrayed in theological circles as the greatest enemy to faith that has ever emerged out of the history of philosophy. Not only is this incorrect, but it is an error that has deprived theologians (perhaps Lutheran Theologians in particular) of an important ally. Kant is not faith's enemy, but rather, one might say, its champion in exile. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

[Prismatic567]

So let's see... Kant's actual statements are dismissed as "tongue and cheek" while conjecture about what he thought” in the closet” is given credence? Grayling's interpretation is possible although it's in a small minority as far as “reputable” published commentaries I've read on Kant are concerned.

Nope!
I have explained all the statements you produced re Kant, your views are straw-man[s] and out of context, i.e.

1. Deny knowledge ..make room for faith,
2. The idea of God is most rational OPINION for morality [Practical Reason].
3. Your personal opinion, Kant was a theist.. NO! NO! NO! Kant was a Deist.
4. Others?

I have countered all your above claims.
If you insist on the above, you'll need to produce solid evidence and arguments within the whole context of Kantian Philosophy.

Re Grayling's claimed 'Kant was an atheist' [closet] is not a conjecture.
Do you have an idea of the politico-religio climate during Kant's time. Kant was admonished DIRECTLY by the King, banned and was given warnings.

Kant faced with censorship when he attempted to publish the Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1792) because of the fear that the radical effects of the French Revolution would spread amongst Prussia as well. Kant managed to publish it through the theology department of the University of Jena.
He received an admonition directly from the King’s authority for this.
When he ignored the King’s warnings and published a second edition for his book, he was ultimately banned from publishing or publicly speaking about religion ever again. Kant later explained himself about this in his work, The Conflict of the Faculties (1798).
https://prussianhistory.com/immanuel-kant/

Given the above threatening situation, any intelligent, wise and rational person would pretend to please the authorities. This is what is happening in many Muslim-majority nations where atheists would pretend to be "theists" to avoid death or severe punishments for being an atheist.

Grayling gave his basis and evidence for his conclusion, read the whole article and tell me where he is wrong.

As far as associating Kant [deism] with God as in theism, there is only a small minority and this theistic group [compelled by confirmation bias] has not understood Kant's motive for the idea of God is purely for morality [Practical Reason] only. The most famous is Stephen Palmquist together with a few others [countable within all the fingers].

If you have read the whole range of Kant's philosophy, you will note Kant had a great detest for the idea of God, especially in the area of theism [personal living God]. His anti-theism triggered the King to admonish him directly. [see quote above]
On this basis, Kant's deism [reasoned God] is most likely a pretension to please the authorities.

As mentioned, instead of the term 'God', Kant had a more effective idea for his morality, i.e. the Ens Realissimum which is non-theistic.

You seem to be absolutely sure of your interpretation.

Yes, grounded upon a 3+ years of full time study on Kant with continual refresh on it.
Point is I have given my justifications.
All you need is to prove [objectively & not bias as a theist] they are wrong from the whole of the Kantian perspective.

But, I find many astute commentators who seem support my interpretation. For example :

It is, thus, a profound irony that Kant is so commonly portrayed in theological circles as the greatest enemy to faith that has ever emerged out of the history of philosophy. Not only is this incorrect, but it is an error that has deprived theologians (perhaps Lutheran Theologians in particular) of an important ally. Kant is not faith's enemy, but rather, one might say, its champion in exile. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

Astute??
The authors are bias with rhetoric on the term 'faith'.

Note both the authors, Lawrence Pasternack and [Reverend] Philip Rossi, are theists and Christians. Thus one can expect them to be driven by rhetoric and confirmation bias to soothe their existential crisis.

Kant opened room for faith [on idea of God] as a necessity and purely for his moral framework to be effective. You have to fully grasp how the Kantian Moral Framework works to understand how Kant fit the idea of God [illusory] into it.
When one relies on faith, anything goes [it is subjective] and this include the idea of God which is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
Analogy: A child will have faith in his parents Santa is real [riding on a flying reindeer] deliver Christmas gifts to him.

But there is no way Kant agreed the idea of God can be possible to be real empirically and philosophically. [read the article for this point].

[felix dakat]

You seem to be absolutely sure of your interpretation.

Yes, grounded upon a 3+ years of full time study on Kant with continual refresh on it.
Point is I have given my justifications.
All you need is to prove [objectively & not bias as a theist] they are wrong from the whole of the Kantian perspective.

But, I find many astute commentators who seem support my interpretation. For example :

It is, thus, a profound irony that Kant is so commonly portrayed in theological circles as the greatest enemy to faith that has ever emerged out of the history of philosophy. Not only is this incorrect, but it is an error that has deprived theologians (perhaps Lutheran Theologians in particular) of an important ally. Kant is not faith's enemy, but rather, one might say, its champion in exile. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

Astute??
The authors are bias with rhetoric on the term 'faith'.

Note both the authors, Lawrence Pasternack and [Reverend] Philip Rossi, are theists and Christians. Thus one can expect them to be driven by rhetoric and confirmation bias to soothe their existential crisis.

Kant opened room for faith [on idea of God] as a necessity and purely for his moral framework to be effective. You have to fully grasp how the Kantian Moral Framework works to understand how Kant fit the idea of God [illusory] into it.
When one relies on faith, anything goes [it is subjective] and this include the idea of God which is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
Analogy: A child will have faith in his parents Santa is real [riding on a flying reindeer] deliver Christmas gifts to him.

But there is no way Kant agreed the idea of God can be possible to be real empirically and philosophically. [read the article for this point].

First you dismiss the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the ad hominem grounds that they are theists and Christians, then you endorse the article as supporting your position. Which is it?

[Prismatic567]

Astute??
The authors are bias with rhetoric on the term 'faith'.

Note both the authors, Lawrence Pasternack and [Reverend] Philip Rossi, are theists and Christians. Thus one can expect them to be driven by rhetoric and confirmation bias to soothe their existential crisis.

Kant opened room for faith [on idea of God] as a necessity and purely for his moral framework to be effective. You have to fully grasp how the Kantian Moral Framework works to understand how Kant fit the idea of God [illusory] into it.
When one relies on faith, anything goes [it is subjective] and this include the idea of God which is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
Analogy: A child will have faith in his parents Santa is real [riding on a flying reindeer] deliver Christmas gifts to him.

But there is no way Kant agreed the idea of God can be possible to be real empirically and philosophically. [read the article for this point].

First you dismiss the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the ad hominem grounds that they are theists and Christians, then you endorse the article as supporting your position. Which is it?

My point is the article kept mentioning Kant's idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, and did not mention God as real empirically and philosophically.

The theistic Christian authors may have presumed Kant's idea of God is real which in this case would be a contradiction. They did not argue Kant's idea of God is real.

As per the article, Kant's idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, period!

Note my analogy, of some parent's' purpose of the idea of a real-Santa [illusory and false] is merely to bullshit and please their child.

[felix dakat]

I don't see the authors' viewpoint as at all supportive of yours. Seems to me you are able to read your viewpoint on Kant into anything. To me your perspective on Kant is idiosyncratic. Reputable published commentators that I've read don't share it. But, you have only to read the diversity of neo kantian philosophers to see that numerous plausible interpretations of Kant are possible. Plus subsequent empirical science has shown that some of Kant's propositions are doubtful. But you're trying to use absolute atheism to refute absolutist theism. You're trying to use empiricism which is always inductive as a basis for a deductive argument, when all inductive conclusions are no more than probable. The fact that you don't recognize the possible fallibility of your proposition suggests that there is an element of fanaticism in your thinking. Wouldn't that be ironic since you are so concerned about the fanaticism of religionists particularly Muslims? It's evidence that projecting one's Shadow side unto others and not seeing it in oneself isn't limited to the professing religious, fanatical atheists do it as well.

[Prismatic567]

I don't see the authors' viewpoint as at all supportive of yours. Seems to me you are able to read your viewpoint on Kant into anything.

If you read the whole article, the main point is Kant's used of the idea of God is purely regulative and for the purpose of morality only.
There is no indication where they argued God is real empirically and philosophically.
If so, where?

I am not reading my viewpoint on Kant's.
I am relying on the whole of Kant's philosophy and express not my own but Kant's own view that the idea of God is an illusion which is useful for the purpose of morality.

In the penultimate part of Kant's CPR, he concluded the following;

Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God. 500
Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God . 507
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
Kant's CPR - Smith

In the above, Kant demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real empirically and philosophically.

Here is what Kant wrote, if the use of the idea of God is abused, it leads to illusion.

The outcome of all Dialectical attempts of Pure Reason does not merely confirm what we have already proved in the Transcendental Analytic, namely,
-that all those conclusions of ours which profess to lead us beyond the field of Possible -Experience are deceptive and without foundation;
-it likewise teaches us this further lesson,
that Human Reason has a natural tendency to transgress these Limits, and
-that Transcendental Ideas are just as natural to it [Human Reason] as the Categories -are to Understanding -- though with this difference,
-that while
the Categories lead to Truth, that is, to the conformity of our Concepts with the Object,
the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.
A642 B670

Here is where Kant stated where Transcendental Ideas [leading to illusions] can be useful of used on a regulative basis;

I accordingly maintain that Transcendental Ideas NEVER allow of any Constitutive Employment [the empirically real].
When regarded in that mistaken manner, and therefore as supplying Concepts of certain Objects, they are but pseudo-Rational, merely Dialectical Concepts.
Regulative Facilitate all Rules of Understanding toward a Point of Intersection – a Focus Imaginarius [FI], is an Idea.
On the other hand, they [Transcendental Ideas] have an excellent, and indeed indispensably necessary, Regulative Employment, namely, that of directing the Understanding towards a certain goal upon which the Routes marked out by all its [Understanding’s] Rules converge, as upon their Point of Intersection.
A643 B671

In the above Kant stated if Transcendental Ideas [idea of God] is used in a mistaken manner, they are pseudo-Rational and are merely Dialectical Concepts, i.e. as illusions.

The only use of excellent and necessary is for Regulative Employment, i.e. for the purpose of Morality in establishing absolute laws which Kant explained briefly in the final chapters as a preclude to his book, The Critique of Practical Reason [Morality].

To me your perspective on Kant is idiosyncratic. Reputable published commentators that I've read don't share it. But, you have only to read the diversity of neo kantian philosophers to see that numerous plausible interpretations of Kant are possible.

How many reputable commentators have you read and what is the % of these to the other reputatble commentators who do not hold the theistic claims?
As far as I know, the % is negligible and insignificant.

The theists who read Kant merely focus on the transcendental idea as God used regulatively within morality and ignored Kant's critical groundings.

Plus subsequent empirical science has shown that some of Kant's propositions are doubtful.

Science is very limited thus has very little impact on Kant's propositions.
Kant's approach is based on critical thinking, systematic, completeness and holistic approach, thus cover the full spectrum.

But you're trying to use absolute atheism to refute absolutist theism.

Nope I am not trying to use absolute atheism [not such thing] to refute absolutist theism.

What I am proving is the hypothesis, "God exists as real" is moot, i.e. a non-starter.

Kant [not me] used the idea of God [illusory] on a regulative basis for the purpose of morality only to ground absolute moral laws.
I don't agree, I have argued in the Ethics section, we do not need a God as a basis for absolute moral laws. Humanity [all humans] can do that.

You're trying to use empiricism which is always inductive as a basis for a deductive argument, when all inductive conclusions are no more than probable. The fact that you don't recognize the possible fallibility of your proposition suggests that there is an element of fanaticism in your thinking. Wouldn't that be ironic since you are so concerned about the fanaticism of religionists particularly Muslims? It's evidence that projecting one's Shadow side unto others and not seeing it in oneself isn't limited to the professing religious, fanatical atheists do it as well.

Where did I use empiricism as an inductive basis for deductive arguments?

Note I mentioned above;
What I am proving is the hypothesis, "God exists as real" is moot, i.e. a non-starter.

You on the other hand are claiming God is empirically real but is unable to provide no empirical and philosophical justifications to support your claim.
According to Kant you are merely reifying an illusion as empirically real.

As far as your "Muslim" accusation, that is based on ignorance, ad hominen without argument and justification.
Note I raised this thread;

Do Not Bash Muslims
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=191104&hilit=do+not+bash+muslim

I have never condemned any Muslims even the jihadist terrorists. The primary fault is not due the Muslims but rather the evil ideology of Islam. The same is, WW II horrors are not due to Germans but the ideology of Nazism grounded on the Main Kampf.
Btw, the Quran is worst than the Main Kampf in terms of anti-semitism, evil and violence.

Whatever claims I have made, they are supported by objective evidence and rational arguments.
Theists made their claims driven by desperate psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.

[felix dakat]

Astute??
The authors are bias with rhetoric on the term 'faith'.

Note both the authors, Lawrence Pasternack and [Reverend] Philip Rossi, are theists and Christians. Thus one can expect them to be driven by rhetoric and confirmation bias to soothe their existential crisis.

Kant opened room for faith [on idea of God] as a necessity and purely for his moral framework to be effective. You have to fully grasp how the Kantian Moral Framework works to understand how Kant fit the idea of God [illusory] into it.
When one relies on faith, anything goes [it is subjective] and this include the idea of God which is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
Analogy: A child will have faith in his parents Santa is real [riding on a flying reindeer] deliver Christmas gifts to him.

But there is no way Kant agreed the idea of God can be possible to be real empirically and philosophically. [read the article for this point].

First you dismiss the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the ad hominem grounds that they are theists and Christians, then you endorse the article as supporting your position. Which is it?

My point is the article kept mentioning Kant's idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, and did not mention God as real empirically and philosophically.

The theistic Christian authors may have presumed Kant's idea of God is real which in this case would be a contradiction. They did not argue Kant's idea of God is real.

As per the article, Kant's idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, period!

Note my analogy, of some parent's' purpose of the idea of a real-Santa [illusory and false] is merely to bullshit and please their child.

I think your repeated use of the phrase “real empirically” or “empirically real” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Kant. On top of that, you completely ignored what the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article said about Kant’s take on faith. According to Kant reality cannot be known as it is in itself. What empirical observation reveals are phenomena. The human mind structures the phenomenal universe with its own categorical order. The object itself is unknowable. Man has no necessary insight into the Transcendent nor into the world as such. He can only know things as they appear to him not as they are in themselves.

Having misunderstood Kant's epistemology, you proceed to misunderstand his religion. Kant wanted to rescue not only science from Hume’s skepticism but also religion. For Kant that included moral freedom as well as God. By restricting reason’s authority to the phenomenal world, he opened up the possibility of faith. Science could claim certain knowledge of appearances but it couldn't arrogantly claim knowledge over all reality. In this way Kant believed he had reconciled scientific determinism with religious belief and morality which depends on free will. Per Kant although one can't know that God exists, one can believe it and such faith is necessary for morality [the categorical imperative].

But like I said before, science has rendered some of Kant’s propositions doubtful. For example, he thought that Euclidean geometry was synthetic a priori because it worked so well for Newton's laws of physics. 20th century physics exploded Kant's assumptions about this.