Critique of Pure Reason/ "Real Predicate"

[Bishadi]

Thomas post ...

'Existence' is an abstract concept, describing a state of 'is-ness', but it does not answer these prior questions

are you defining GOD or existence?

If a thing is, it exists, if a thing is not, it does not exist (although it might have, and perhaps it will, but not presently) 'Existence' itself is not a power, nor a presence, nor even a medium ... in fact 'nothing' can exist as equally as 'something' ... Existence then is not a thing, it has no attributes of itself ...

Yep… sounds like you defining God…..

Originally Posted by Bishadi

so that progression is a part of consciousness

then you said


Is it? I would say consciousness is apart from and prior to knowledge ...

Not a word ever known unless someone of consciousness experienced and created the definition to the idea/experience…… so all knowledge was consciously derived.

you're mixing a qualitative and quantitative distinction ...

Just common sense

Your also putting a narrow and artificial value on things

Perhap broadening the playing field in which the knowledge ‘from the Indians’ can also be honored

... and I notice wisdom is absent in your schemata ...

Wisdom shares ‘leave the door ajar’.. trust God not man

Knowledge entangles more mass. We be mass…. Many in church because words entangled their minds to that ‘collective association’… so much of that mass, is walking around with the same ‘energy’ upon their mind… which all came from words

OK. BVut you won't find the answer in your line of questioning can you, because you've accepted existence as a kind of limit on what can be known?

no limit… Genesis

22</SPAN>And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' –

which is what this says

Originally Posted by Bishadi
so the last phase is simple; the equality of mind is when the knowledge of understanding enables mankind to comprehend its life upon mass all within their ability to create.

And you say

Sorry ... that sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I can understand a notion of 'perfection' as understanding that is equal to its object — ie the truth of a thing can be known — if what you're saying is once you understand aerodynamics you can make aeroplanes that fly, then OK

For mankind (each of us) to comprehend ‘life’ then we can live as intended; able to create life by choice.

Originally Posted by Bishadi
That is when existence understands itself ...

And you

No ... that's a jump which does not logically follow? I can understand that the more man learns about the world, the more he understands himself as an existing being in the world ... but for 'existence to understand itself' you're implying existence has its own individual and rational nature ... which you have not demonstrated?

It does… there is nothing we cannot understand. Them limitations are from oppression taught by people who ‘gave up’…

But that demonstration will unfold by a paradigm shift in comprehending how ‘atoms and energy’ work. There is a specific function as to how mass, energy and time; the trinity associate based on observing energy as light upon mass and maintaining the properties as relevant… i.e.. entanglement

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

the thread in on Kant's .......... real 'predicate'....

Yes, but asked in reference to God. Did Kant believe in God? Yes.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

but we all can see your "NO" ... and of course your beliefs over anything else ... a firm believer of magic ... we all see they

Don't assume that everyone else seeks to misrepresent my beliefs or my position ... I'm sure they can see through your attempts.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

Can anyone tell me if I'm misinterpreting this? When Kant suggests that existence may not be a real predicate it seems like it means that a sentence like "God is" is incomplete and must instead be something like "God is _____" ("God is perfect" or "God is loving" etc..). This tells me that one can only say "God is" if it goes something like: "God 'is' if God is loving." Otherwise, either he's not God or he doesn't exist, right?

I'm not familiar with this by Kant, but I would be inclined to disagree.

I frequently use the term "G-d is," and I use it to denote that G-d exists. What is more, to state emphatically that G-d is (insert "predicate" of choice) is to try to limit the limitless, to try to narrow the boundaries of the infinite.

Not that it can't be done, but that it just doesn't fully convey the essence. But that is a limitation of language, not of G-d. It also serves to betray the limitations imposed by the human mind.

My two cents.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Not a word ever known unless someone of consciousness experienced and created the definition to the idea/experience…… so all knowledge was consciously derived.

I disagree. There is a great deal of knowledge that is not a derivation of consciousness. I speak of knowledge gained of experience. One can fantasize, hypothesize, calculate, scheme, plot, plan, and figure all day long...but until one actually demonstrates by *doing* it cannot truthfully be called "knowledge."

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

are you defining GOD or existence?

I did say existence ... yes, definitely existence ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Yep… sounds like you defining God…..

No, If I were defining God I would be talking about transcendent and meta-principles — metaphysics, not physics — here I'm talking physics. God and existence are two very different things.

You must try and get away from the notion — which you seem to assume of everyone else — of thinking God as some Olympian inhabitant. The Greeks left that image behind a long, long time ago, and so have the rest of us.

... But I assume by these diversions you are avoiding answering the original question — existence in itself is not causative of anything, therefore does not explain the existence of things, nor their movement ... does it ... existence doesn't explain itself.

I said:

you're mixing a qualitative and quantitative distinction ...

You say:

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Just common sense

Not really ... common sense says don't confuse things ... 'mass', 'time' and 'energy' are quantitative measures, whereas 'existence' is qualatitive ... you're assuming it's common sense to say a thing is just the confluence of its attributes ... whereas common sense has come to understand that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts'.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Wisdom shares ‘leave the door ajar’.. trust God not man

So 'wisdom' is only ever a divine quality ... and man should avoid it?

+++

Originally Posted by Bishadi

It does… there is nothing we cannot understand.

Hurrah! Do you not see that unless you already know everything there is to be understood — that statement comprises an act of faith.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

There is a specific function as to how mass, energy and time; the trinity associate based on observing energy as light upon mass and maintaining the properties as relevant… i.e.. entanglement

I'm sure there is ... but that's neither what this thread, Kant nor I was talking about, is it?

Mass, energy and time are predicates of existence, but Kant is arguing that existence itself is prior to its predicates ... eg mass, energy and time it doesn't explain why the world exists or what caused it ... mass, energy and time do not cause existence, they are attributes of it.

Which is where we differ, your triune MET explains how things work, but not why; nor whether there is a reason, purpose or point to it all.

Thomas

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I disagree. There is a great deal of knowledge that is not a derivation of consciousness. I speak of knowledge gained of experience. One can fantasize, hypothesize, calculate, scheme, plot, plan, and figure all day long...but until one actually demonstrates by *doing* it cannot truthfully be called "knowledge."

Knowledge conveyed is in words, symbols, sounds and even gestures; but to be shared from one person to another, transcending time; man created all words.

SO even if you saw the end of the world; how could you define what you saw within today's knowledge (words)

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No, If I were defining God I would be talking about transcendent and meta-principles — metaphysics, not physics — here I'm talking physics. God and existence are two very different things.

To you they are separate; as to you God is somewhee else and not here but way over there....someplace

God is real as in right here, right now, of us, with us, "i am in you and you in me' kind of real..... not some dude on thrown turning switchs and allowing the evil satan to steal souls.... that old school foolishness

You must try and get away from the notion — which you seem to assume of everyone else — of thinking God as some Olympian inhabitant. The Greeks left that image behind a long, long time ago, and so have the rest of us.

but you still adhere to 'phenomenon' as if by God.....

so like you mentioned about the Greeks left that behind, i am here to share with you, that the old style of 'trinity' father son holy stuff, kind of metaphysical ideas of the such is soon to be over with...

— existence in itself is not causative of anything, therefore does not explain the existence of things, nor their movement ... does it ... existence doesn't explain itself.

that is why mass (us) ate that apple.... then we could define with awareness and understanding (like God)....

'the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts'.

Hence why 'existence' itself cannot really have a definition except by math

So 'wisdom' is only ever a divine quality ... and man should avoid it?

The wisdom and absolute observance to the fact that mankind created every word, is a real good one to observe.

The wisdom of integrity such as recognizing God does not use words to speak to me, and to ever accept that God spoke to Moses, Jesus, etc... means I must also observe Confucius, Nostradamus and Ted Haggart...

where wisdom proves that good wisdom can even come from a bag lady

Mass, energy and time are predicates of existence,

Actually they be the place we all live within..

eg mass, energy and time it doesn't explain why the world exists or what caused it

And a burning bush does?

... mass, energy and time do not cause existence, they are attributes of it.

And niether of them can exist without the other; hence the trinity.

Which is where we differ, your triune MET explains how things work, but not why; nor whether there is a reason, purpose or point to it all.

Purpose: to continue... same basic precept of life itself..


Why and the reason... can never be observed unless it is recognized perfectly as; 'to exist'. such that any could say "love"..... but logically that would mean the future was already set in such before even 'the light' that HE was aware of His own beginning.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Knowledge conveyed is in words, symbols, sounds and even gestures; but to be shared from one person to another, transcending time; man created all words.

SO even if you saw the end of the world; how could you define what you saw within today's knowledge (words)

OK, but that is not what you said. You said "all knowledge was consciously derived." I disagree.

Birds KNOW to fly south for the winter. Hibernating animals KNOW to prepare for the cold weather. I have seen many instances of animals KNOWING things that humans were too involved in their minds, lost in their own little thought worlds, to ever appreciate. Animals as lowly as insects KNOW before an earthquake strikes. Animals KNEW to flee from the shore when the tsunami was coming.

While I can agree knowledge can be shared from one human to another human with the use of words, images, etc.; that would be speaking of human "knowledge" not *all* knowledge, and even then I would hesitate to call it knowledge for the very reasons I mentioned. Without experience that can be demonstrated, what passes as knowledge among humans is not anything close to genuine knowledge.

Unless one cares to demonstrate...like perhaps building a fire without the benefit of a lighter or matches? Now THAT could be classed as "knowledge." Up until the point of experience and demonstration, at best we have is theory, and there is a whole lot passed off as knowledge that doesn't even come close to theory.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

To you they are separate;

Distinct according to their natures ... yes. You and I are separate, but the same. God and man are utterly un-alike, yet (potentially) one ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

as to you God is somewhere else and not here but way over there....someplace

No, again you assume a purile model.

If you understood Christianity at all youy would know this is an erroneous assumption to make of a Christian. God to me is Absolutely Transcendent, and intimately Immanent.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

God is real as in right here, right now,

OK. Prove it.

+++

Originally Posted by Bishadi

of us,

Ah, you might be assuming pantheism, or panentheism ... but this is not Christian.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

with us, "i am in you and you in me' kind of real ...

Well as you're making a very poor reference to Christian Scripture, that is obviously what I think, isn't it ... so you're argument is illogical as well as poorly presented ... to which I can only conclude you might have some vague inkling of what Scripture says, but you certainly don't understand it.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

... not some dude on thrown turning switchs and allowing the evil satan to steal souls.... that old school foolishness

Here you go again ... asserting your old prejudices in the face of every evidence to the contrary ...

... and none of these assertions can you prove ... they are acts of faith on your part ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

but you still adhere to 'phenomenon' as if by God.....

Ontologically, yes. If not then what? I certainly don't adhere to the idea that phenomena just pops out of the void ... or that existence caused itself.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

so like you mentioned about the Greeks left that behind, i am here to share with you, that the old style of 'trinity' father son holy stuff, kind of metaphysical ideas of the such is soon to be over with...

Bishadi you're not here to share anything.

You're here on the Christianity forum, persistently and inconsistently mocking Christianity and insisting on your own a-theist POV. I am here pointing out your errors, both doctrinally and philosophically.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

that is why mass (us) ate that apple.... then we could define with awareness and understanding (like God)....

Again, you see, you're leaping to conclusions on no basis of evidence at all, what is the correlation between mass and consciousness, and consciousness and understanding? None in any physics I know.

The point of Scripture is man cannot know that which lies outside his nature to know, he is not omniscient, nor omnipotent ... much as he likes to convince himself he could be.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Hence why 'existence' itself cannot really have a definition except by math

Really? What is math but a system of relations? What is 'number' but an intellectual construct?

Oh, if you could ever get over your own prejudice, and actually made an inquiry about the above of Christian doctrine, you would be gobsmacked!

I can think of:
St Gregory of Nyssa — who chose to examine the philosophical notion of 'distance' or 'spacing' in existence and its significance ... of 'being' and 'presence' and 'thought'

St Maximus the Confessor — who chose the idea of 'number' and 'movement' ..

Or St Nicholas of Cusa, who laid the foundation of renaissance math and the idea of the infinite ...

... there are hundreds more ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

The wisdom and absolute observance to the fact that mankind created every word, is a real good one to observe.

But why stop there ... 'words' are conceptual models, like math ... but actually more useful ... math is more exact, more precise, but words can express more ... why not seek the source of that which that gave rise to the word?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

The wisdom of integrity such as recognizing God does not use words to speak to me, and to ever accept that God spoke to Moses, Jesus, etc... means I must also observe Confucius, Nostradamus and Ted Haggart...

No exercise of critical faculty then?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

where wisdom proves that good wisdom can even come from a bag lady

Yes it can.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Actually they be the place we all live within...

OK, but that still avoids the question.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

And a burning bush does?

If you understand that image within the whole model, yes, it does.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

And niether of them can exist without the other; hence the trinity.

That's where I think you're wrong. I think MET is just a conceptual model based on empirical observation of phenomena ... MET can explain some (not all) phenomena, but not existence.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Purpose: to continue... same basic precept of life itself...

I would say continuance is subsequent to existence. Life must exist for continuance to be its purpose ... but continuance of what ... that's the question ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Why and the reason... can never be observed unless it is recognized perfectly as; 'to exist'. such that any could say "love"..... but logically that would mean the future was already set in such before even 'the light' that HE was aware of His own beginning.

Again, I don't follow, and you're thinking seems confused.

If by 'He' you mean God, there never was a beginning — 'beginning' is a concept derives from a spatio-temporal condition ... God is not subject to time no space.

Nor do I see any room for 'love' in your MET model ... neither Mass, nor energy, nor time, causes love.

Thomas

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Distinct according to their natures ... yes. You and I are separate, but the same. God and man are utterly un-alike, yet (potentially) one ...

Name a nature of God we do not.

If you understood Christianity at all youy would know this is an erroneous assumption to make of a Christian. God to me is Absolutely Transcendent, and intimately Immanent.

Same with existence.

OK. Prove it.

i am, therfore I exist..... within existence (God)

not an ism kind of guy as the word truthism.. doesn't sound cool enough

Well as you're making a very poor reference to Christian Scripture, that is obviously what I think, isn't it ... so you're argument is illogical

but the idea that a women came from man's rib is?

or that some dude will fly through the cloud and rapture up the good....... that's all logical?

... and none of these assertions can you prove ... they are acts of faith on your part ...

that's my line......

Bishadi you're not here to share anything.

deaf ears cannot hear..... it's in your book (Bible)

You're here on the Christianity forum, persistently and inconsistently mocking Christianity and insisting on your own a-theist POV. I am here pointing out your errors, both doctrinally and philosophically.

No I am not here damaging a religion but here sharing what the religions all said was going to happen. What I crush are the fibs of men that oppress the minds of the children; our future. If that puts a priest out of a job, then maybe we have less pedophilia as well deciet damaging others for the institutions survival. Meaning I care more about others than my beliefs.

Again, you see, you're leaping to conclusions on no basis of evidence at all, what is the correlation between mass and consciousness, and consciousness and understanding? None in any physics I know.

Because consciousness reveals t<0 and not physicist will put their 'career' on the line to go against the 'community' just like most faithful don't believe half of what their religious order suggests, but don't say a thing about it.

but then all the religions suggested a day would come when 'the revealing' will answer all comers who wish to debate truth.

But why stop there ... 'words' are conceptual models, like math ... but actually more useful ... math is more exact, more precise, but words can express more ... why not seek the source of that which that gave rise to the word?

So you have a few good points here; first the math, is the universal language; hence the name of God is of Math.

Second that words convey much and most of your theology is based in words as math was a second thought to religious order.

and last; both concepts used to define existence are / were created by men/women and evolved through time...

and like all the old school, they had a new generation share how ignorant they really are....

try some old philosophy...


“To live in accordance with the essence of things, as Socrates said, is the premise of the moral life.

One cannot live in peace of mind without at the same time being in harmony with reality.”

“The premises of a moral life is based on a covenant with reality.”

“No life is authentic that is in conflict with the order of the universe.”


And not knowing the order of the universe constitutes a serious handicap in living a moral life!

or mine to you

"virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."

Socrates

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I disagree. There is a great deal of knowledge that is not a derivation of consciousness. I speak of knowledge gained of experience. One can fantasize, hypothesize, calculate, scheme, plot, plan, and figure all day long...but until one actually demonstrates by *doing* it cannot truthfully be called "knowledge."

sorry as it seems our definitions are mixed up.

knowledge conveyed between mankind...... all were 'created' by men/women.... to communicate/associate...

if we are going to talk about whales communicating over vast distance or even that ideas are not of experience, then i am not sure what you are talking about....


because it does not make sense to suggest that only 'doing' is knowledge

I would call the idea when a person 'does' something that a choice was made, not that knowledge was 'doing' ....

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

knowledge conveyed between mankind...... all were 'created' by men/women.... to communicate/associate...

You are still not being clear in your presentation. All *what* were created by humans? Knowledge? I demonstrated that this assertion is incorrect. The primary fallacy in your assertion is the qualifier "all."

Originally Posted by Bishadi

if we are going to talk about whales communicating over vast distance or even that ideas are not of experience, then i am not sure what you are talking about....

Are you suggesting whales exchange knowledge *exclusively* through whalesong? I submit that is again erroneous and limited thinking.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

because it does not make sense to suggest that only 'doing' is knowledge

It doesn't make sense? Why? Because it shows the limitations of the fallacious assertion? Or because it illuminates the prejudicial promotion of humans above other animal life? Or because it highlights the fallacious presumption that thought and knowledge are equivocal- almost interchangeable?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

I would call the idea when a person 'does' something that a choice was made, not that knowledge was 'doing' ....

Very well, it still does not negate my assertion that true knowledge requires experience.

Otherwise, what you are promoting can as easily be said of lies; "lies conveyed between mankind...... all were 'created' by men/women.... to communicate/associate..." To the unwary or those not understanding, lies might easily be confused with "knowledge."

Allow me to present an example; I can tell you how to pick, cook and eat wild mushrooms. According to you, that would be me conveying knowledge to you. If you take what I have given you, this you call knowledge, and go out and pick the wrong mushrooms, properly prepare them, eat and die...I have not given you knowledge, I have lied to you.

Now, if I can take you into the wilds with me and *show* you which mushrooms, and show you how to prepare them, and enjoy the meal...THEN! That is conveying knowledge.

Animals share knowledge without language or rational thought on a regular basis, by demonstration. Knowledge and thought are only incidentally related.

[Dream]

I Kant understand why this thread is in the Christianity forum, however I'm impressed with the level of focus & concentration that must be required to follow the conversation.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dream

I Kant understand why this thread is in the Christianity forum, however I'm impressed with the level of focus & concentration that must be required to follow the conversation.

Kinda wondered that myself, and thought about moving it to the philosophy board. But if I recall, Kant was a minister of one or another denomination...so I wondered if that was going to enter the convedrsation or not. It's been awhile, I Kant remember what the gist of Kant's arguments were, but I do seem to recall that in the end there was a dichotomy that could not be resolved. In other words, Kant's philosophy isn't perfect and is limited in scope and application.

I'd have to look back into it, and I'm really just not that worried about it right now. Too many other fish to fry...

[Eclectic Mystic]

Kant was a Christian writer, and one of the most prolific ever as a matter of fact.