Critique of Pure Reason/ "Real Predicate"

[Bruno's logic]

and without any religious cannotations or need of faith in magic........
we are within existence (God)
all is provided for but we must retain absolute honesty when it comes to knowledge; otherwise we do nothing for the future; our future; the children; existence; GOD - Bishadi

Indeed and well said.....
~Bruno

and I'm sorry about the miss-spelled words in my post, I tried to edit them but I couldn't figure out how... so here it is again self edited.....

“Now go big........... if all of mankind (collective conscious) knew the truth, what would they be able to create.” – Bishadi

Yes that’s it… one truth…. One existence…. One thing existing……. Space…… in and of space…..

What would ‘we’ be able to create?

Well for one thing we could finally live in peace and live in a utopian society where war and hatred, cruelty and injustice are distant memories and no longer excepted as the normal way of experiencing existence.

For another thing we could finally release our full potential as the Human Entity from planet Earth…. We will always be Earthiens to the rest of the universe. Will they see us as fully evolved or as ignorant idiots believing in their own vain imaginings….

Humanity (we) can overcome our shortcomings, given enough time and a little bit of luck....
Who knows, in a million years we may be known as the keepers of the truth and the teachers of the universe....

~Bruno

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bruno's logic

Indeed and well said.....
~Bruno

and I'm sorry about the miss-spelled words in my post, I tried to edit them but I couldn't figure out how... so here it is again self edited.....

~Bruno

no need for apologies........ by sharing the truth even as the tip of the iceberg...... the depth below the surface must be vast...

Peace to you!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

much better articulation in this last set

I wish I could say the same ... but alas, you insist on your own narrow and naive interpretation of 'religion', equating it with 'magic', 'superstition', 'fibs' and so forth ... and ignoring what 'knowledge' has to say on the matter. You simply ignore the arguments of reason.

This is what disturbs me ... the lack of reason on your part ... on the one hand you proclaim knowledge will answer all out questions, on the other, you determine what qualifies as knowledge, and what doesn't.

Ergo you must assume yourself infallible and omniscient.

+++

Originally Posted by Bishadi

so basically an answer for the unknown?

No, basically an admission that we might not know all there is to be known, and that reason and intellect point to certain conclusions which can neither be proved or disproved ... but which must be allowed.

Again, your attempts to ridicule the idea of religion suggest a fundamental attitude which refuses to acknowledge the rights of the speculative intellect, let alone religious experience.

+++

Originally Posted by Bishadi

as there is nothing 'outside' of existence ...

Can you demonstrate that? Can you show me the outside of existence, with nothing in it?

If not ... you can't say it as a fact, only as an article of faith.

What about parallel universes, do they count as 'inside' or 'outside'?

+++

Originally Posted by Bishadi

... we created the terms to even represent the idea or belief...

And you reject an idea which billions, down through history, have accepted as reasonable, even arguable. And on what? On no evidence at all but your own conviction that it is not so.

I do not reject science, nor knowledge, by the way ... I just accept them within the terms they have defined for themselves.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Now go big........... if all of mankind (collective conscious) knew the truth, what would they be able to create.

Spurious argument ... maybe weapons of mass destruction?

Neither truth nor knowledge (and the two do not equate, in my book) imply a moral value, which is what you're hoping to imply by the above statement.

(The really frightening implication is 'imagine if everyone thought like me', isn't it?)

For all our science and knowledge, Bishadi, this is the first generation in a long, long time that will pass on to our kids a world in a worse state than was passed to us ... so let's not make sentimental and high-blown statements that are pie in the sky.

+++

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Did you notice how that works? Without words for you to comprehend his experience, you would never trust he ever saw one (ice berg)...

And does it not occur to you that man had to experience one before he came up with the words?

Without experience, there is no knowledge.

But somehow, knowledge has set itself up as the arbiter of experience.

+++

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

How does one person share their experiences with another?

just answer the question

This comment alone highlights the immaturity and lack of knowledge. I am not the one avoiding the questions...and yet, I have no requirement to respond. I certainly have no need to respond to prejudicial judgemental comments that are made in complete ignorance.

I have already answered your question directly and succinctly. Something you seem hesitant to do for my questions.

You don't know me. And it is exceptionally arrogant and prejudicial of you to presume you do...particularly when other threads I have been participating on during this same period of time fly directly in the face of your accusations. Which, had you even bothered, would show just how very wrong you are to presume what you have concerning me and where I am coming from.

One thread in particular, to which you were handed a specific invitation and to which you apparently feel no compulsion to participate, would answer a great deal of your questions and clear up many of your presumptive misunderstandings. Yet you cannot be bothered with genuine scholarship, the kind where ideas are explored. You are too invested in entrenching yourself with your own prejudices and preconceptions, and deluding yourself into thinking it is scholarship.

You made the fallacious assertion "all knowledge was consciously derived." I called your bluff, and logically demonstrated the fallacy in your assertion. You duck and dodge and stall and change the subject and attempt every verbal manuver to get out of the simple fact you made an erroneous assertion. The onus is not on me to build your sandcastle...the onus is on you to prove your sandcastle is worth protecting.

Go ahead, prove your fallacious assertion. You haven't even begun to, yet.

[Dream]

Thanks for that information, Thomas.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I wish I could say the same ... but alas, you insist on your own narrow and naive interpretation of 'religion', equating it with 'magic', 'superstition', 'fibs' and so forth ... and ignoring what 'knowledge' has to say on the matter. You simply ignore the arguments of reason.

Reason and common sense run the show, not returning to beliefs.

This is what disturbs me ... the lack of reason on your part ... on the one hand you proclaim knowledge will answer all out questions, on the other, you determine what qualifies as knowledge, and what doesn't.

Either the material is based in fact, or it is not.

Beliefs have nothing to do with fact. Hence why they must be held in belief.

Again, your attempts to ridicule the idea of religion suggest a fundamental attitude which refuses to acknowledge the rights of the speculative intellect, let alone religious experience.

problem is I read all the religions, not just one.

And each comment made is based in observance to many forms of knowledge, not just one. So intellect is the governing policy coupled with experience.....

Can you demonstrate that? Can you show me the outside of existence, with nothing in it?

If not ... you can't say it as a fact, only as an article of faith.

What about parallel universes, do they count as 'inside' or 'outside'?

You asking me to demonstrate a 'no existence of' for something that does not exist?

That is like me asking you to show me heaven or hell.

Each slot is time is a universe; such that the universe of the 4th century AD is much different than the universe of today but entangled to each other all the same. Such that what is occuring in Israel is based on literature written way back when.

And you reject an idea which billions, down through history, have accepted as reasonable, even arguable. And on what? On no evidence at all but your own conviction that it is not so.

I said all words conveyed in the use of knowledge are/were created by mankind; which means all definitions recorded in beliefs are alse the creation of mankind.

What's the problem with being honest about that.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

I do not reject science, nor knowledge, by the way ... I just accept them within the terms they have defined for themselves.

You accept what the majority or your sect accepts; but not thinking about the truth or what requisite is required of being absolute with honesty before 'baring false witness'

Originally Posted by Bishadi
Now go big........... if all of mankind (collective conscious) knew the truth, what would they be able to create.


and you replied

Spurious argument ... maybe weapons of mass destruction?

we already have them in this religiously controlled world.......

but find, this 'i' will not publish that math in which it would make possible to build the worst of them all...

Neither truth nor knowledge (and the two do not equate, in my book) imply a moral value, which is what you're hoping to imply by the above statement.

This is where foundation in pure science, perfects the knowledge of good and bad.

life itself abuses entropy: and the 'good' associations of mass and energy, 'supports life to continue'

and as a choice is what we experience, we are the only thing in existence that can 'create' a bad. IN which and 'bad' action imposed to existence becomes a 'loss to the common'.....

so to fib (thou shalt not bare false witness) get's me a weeeee bit upset...

by lying and having others read and believe; you be creating false ideas to continue living (a loss to the common)

Without experience, there is no knowledge.

So without Adam eating the apple (the day consciousness was born/recorded), mankind would have never been able to experience choice, and then convey what was understood....

But somehow, knowledge has set itself up as the arbiter of experience.

in a sense, yes..... that we can think in our minds, "we saw a 7 headed dragon with 10 horns...." as was written of old

but knowledge and real experience, shares this to be a metaphor rather than anything of real truth.

So with comprehension and the use of definable words/knowledge we can actually self examine. How can it get any more beautiful than offering each person alive the capability of self examination?

best to live in real truth than looking to the sky for a dragon that is suppose to eat seals.........

[Quahom1]

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?

That would infere that to say "I am." is also incomplete, which it is not. In the present tense of the verb "to be", it denotes that the object is everything. Where as to state "I am something or other", immedialtely limits or otherwise focuses the state of being to a particular point, while isolating the rest for the whole of that which "is".

So, the expression "God is." simply defines God as himself and everything else. Kant, attempts to place God in a box by requiring focus on the finite, rather than allowing for the infiniteness of God. To say that "God is this, and that and the other thing" still attempts to create parameters around the subject, which no longer allows for the expression of infiniteness. But to Say "God is." makes clear that God has no bounds. For the sake of the finite mind, the usual descriptor used to make the statement of infiniteness clear would be "God is everything."

One of the ironies of the English language is the nature of its attempt to define precisely every aspect of a thought. Russian for example, expresses "God is" as simply "Bog" (God). To be, doesn't exist in the language as a spoken expression. It is simply assumed to be known in the mind. To define a precise characteristic of God aside from all else (God is Love), would be "Bog Blublenost" God (is) Love.

just a thought.

v/r

Q

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Reason and common sense run the show, not returning to beliefs.

Really? Do you not believe in what you preach?

It seems reasonable and common sense to me to say that it is the belief that we can reason things underlies the pursuit of knowledge in the first place. Otherwise science would be required to admit it might be on a fool's errand.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Either the material is based in fact, or it is not.

Quite. That is a statement of belief. The material of Scripture is based on the fact of Divine Revelation.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Beliefs have nothing to do with fact. Hence why they must be held in belief.

You mean when something is proven a fact, we must cease to believe in it?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

problem is I read all the religions, not just one.

Yes, and from the evidence you display of the data of my religion, you don't understand it.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

So intellect is the governing policy coupled with experience.....

Yes, and therefore the object of the intellect should not be limited to the immediate sensory data of experience only — else we would never understand anything beyond its surface.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

You asking me to demonstrate a 'no existence of' for something that does not exist?

Well that's your argument, not mine.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

That is like me asking you to show me heaven or hell.

Easy. Find a man dying of thirst in the desert.
Give him a drink of water. That's heaven.
Drink it yourself. That's hell.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Each slot is time is a universe; such that the universe of the 4th century AD is much different than the universe of today but entangled to each other all the same. Such that what is occuring in Israel is based on literature written way back when.

Altered in outward manifestation, but fundamentally the same. Nor is the process discontinuous — each moment shapes and informs the next. It's the same universe, subject to change.

The laws are the same.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

I said all words conveyed in the use of knowledge are/were created by mankind; which means all definitions recorded in beliefs are alse the creation of mankind.

OK. So words are created. Doesn't make 'em any less true.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

What's the problem with being honest about that.

I see the problem lies with you ... not me... you seem to insist your words are true, but my words are false. That seems unreasonable and lacking common sense.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Are you suggesting otherwise?

No ... I am suggesting that the Sacred Sciences might be as true as any other science ... you're the one rejecting that.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

You accept what the majority or your sect accepts;

Yes. And so do you. You are a child of your culture, as am I.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

but not thinking about the truth or what requisite is required of being absolute with honesty before 'baring false witness'

Well as that is a doctrine we gave you, that's patently nonsense, isn't it.

And looking at the livevs of the saints and sages, it is you, who constantly seek to represent the Christian Faith in the most primitive, purile, naive or superstitious manner — utterly ignoring 2,000 years of philosophy — who comes here bearing false witness.

And again, you're assuming as given that your truth is the only truth.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

we already have them in this religiously controlled world.......

'Religiously controlled'? I wish! Or is there some illuminati-like conspiracy theory as part of your system?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

but find, this 'i' will not publish that math in which it would make possible to build the worst of them all...

Ah, so as well as infallible, you are the most powerful man on the planet, too. C'mon, Bishadi ... you're losing the plot here ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

This is where foundation in pure science, perfects the knowledge of good and bad.

Absolutely nonsense. Mankind perfects his morality and ethics, and science plays its part in that process, but ideas of the good and the bad are derived from reflection upon the data, they are not transmitted by the data.

Pure science has, on more than one occasion, shown to be sadly lacking in the moral dimension.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

and as a choice is what we experience, we are the only thing in existence that can 'create' a bad. IN which and 'bad' action imposed to existence becomes a 'loss to the common'.....

Exactly ... you've made your choices, and wish to impose them on me.

I'm not imposing mine on yours, remember, you came to this thread with your thesis to undo my faith, and I have shown it to be flawed. You can keep it, if you like, but don't expect me to accept it, that would be a severe restriction, 'a loss of the common'.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

so to fib (thou shalt not bare false witness) get's me a weeeee bit upset...

C'mon Bishadi ... don't try that ... I bare witness to the Catholic Faith, to the data of Revelation and 2,000 years of philosophical tradition. You're the one turning up here saying it's all a lie ... and you have been singularly unable to prove that, or even demonstrate a reasonable knowledge of Scripture.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

So without Adam eating the apple (the day consciousness was born/recorded),

There you go again, bearing false witness. That's patently a wrong reading of the text. If you read Scripture, you'll see that Adam was conscious from the moment of his creation, in chapter one. The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (not knowledge per se) is not the fruit of consciousness, is it?

He and she had to be conscious of the fruit, to eat it, hadn't they, or they'd have missed it. And they were conscious of the risk in choosing to eat it, as the text says quite explicitly, they were warned, and they knew the risk in dialogue with the serpent.

See ... you don't even comprehend the basic text — and expect me to throw it all up, and come follow you?

Thomas

[Bishadi]

See ... you don't even comprehend the basic text — and expect me to throw it all up, and come follow you?

Thomas

Thomas, this is becoming funny.

The circle within that last post of yours is appearing desperate. Please do not follow me! Follow your conscious, not your beliefs or your mind; just be honest within your soul. Quit fighting.

How you observe the story of adam and eve alone needs a little additional knowledge.

i.e….. every person on this earth, knows for a fact no women was born or ‘created’ from the rib of a man. It is a metaphor in which knowledge reveals the meaning; every life that continues must give a portion of itself to continue ‘life’….. each cell divides.

This is the kind of comprehension that the sciences offer to support and assist in the contributions left from the thousands of years of literature.

I'm not imposing mine on yours, remember, you came to this thread with your thesis to undo my faith

this thread is not about you, hence this is what cracks me up……

Originally Posted by Bishadi

This is where foundation in pure science, perfects the knowledge of good and bad…

Then your reply

Absolutely nonsense. Mankind perfects his morality and ethics, and science plays its part in that process, but ideas of the good and the bad are derived from reflection upon the data, they are not transmitted by the data.

Then what is a prophecy if not ‘transmitted by data’? And then if we know that eating food, is ‘good’ to support life then we can see a obligation to do what ‘supports life to continue’….. as well to harm or drink the thirsty man’s water (your example); is bad…. A selfish choice, causing a ‘loss to the common’…

Originally Posted by Bishadi

we already have them in this religiously controlled world.......

then you wrote

'Religiously controlled'? I wish!

you funny…… our sciences (evolution) has been identified as atheistic by the faithful (sciences discounted by folk like you), the war in the middle east is based on a religious right; upset at the West for creating a religious state (Israel) in Palestine. The whole world is involved and to reap the war of this ‘religious’ pursuit. (end times)

And capitalism is a religion in itself as it requires submission (SS#’s) of the participants. (the 7 headed beast of revelations)

And in the Christianic branches, the idea that we are all sinners and Jesus will remove the responsibility by a believer simply saying, Jesus is HE, has removed the truth;

that never in all of existence can an atrocity ever be removed or forgiven from existence. Only a person can forgive another person, but never will the event be undone.

Point being, the religious abuse and corruption has caused more errors in pure understanding, truth and the good of mankind than any other branch of reality; in all existence.

Religions throughout history have cause more death based on beliefs than all the atomic bombs or creations of sciences in all history combined. (such that the religious orders, commissioned both Archimedes and Leonardo)

And if people were aware that a simple device can be built to break down water (a sort of electrolysis) that could be pointed at a living structure and it would melt and not a person in the medical field would know what it was. And remember what Einstein did when publishing E=mc2 without being responsible for what that knowledge would do….. (fission)…. Point being, you bet I am dangerous and the religious teachers (west) are not going to like me either as in their own beliefs (books) they wrote about the ‘period’ when there will be such a hammer of truth.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Beliefs have nothing to do with fact. Hence why they must be held in belief

Then you wrote

You mean when something is proven a fact, we must cease to believe in it?

Wow! When life is shared in truth as to how it works, without any retention of beliefs but in the nature of (god) existence; then no longer will magic be believed as the causation of our existence.

Light is life. To comprehend what most all the religions all over the world have been suggesting, then the truth becomes absolute; without the ignorance of faith over fact.

i.e…… to represent “all mass, all energy, all time: ONE; existence in total”….. in a mathematical setting; then you share the name of God.

And the whole world is awaiting this exact form (math is the universal language) as within; combines the religions, the sciences and the philosophies;

The three branches of knowledge which have evolved throughout all time; and will combine.

But you might need a little more data to observe the little stuff like this.

Thomas, you’ve been arguing with that fool for the last week. The one who made that choice (the covenant).

I like to suggest; if you looking for forgiveness as your guide; then you are not looking for the right one! Nothing is ever undone; but each can be responsible equally within the truth and then forgiveness is of each choice between each person (as well judgment); rather than a reliance on a misunderstood God (existence).

God is not elsewhere with a magic wand; he is everything we live within; so we must honor what is true (to honor him), as we are equipped with that ability of honesty, compassion, choice and unconditional Love. We are of Him!

Here is your ‘challenge’ ……..oh….. Catholic teacher; find the chalice my great grandfather donated to the church, it will have a name on the bottom of it. Find me and hand it to me…. No following; you must “do” to be true to existence.

So whether you believe or do not; damage has occurred. To teach the truth is ever lasting but if you are really curious and want a chance to meet of man of such commitment; then find the chalice.

Otherwise; me be just another quack and happy to say so; walking in the midst of this worlds corruption.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Otherwise; me be just another quack and happy to say so; walking in the midst of this worlds corruption.

I'll go with that.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I'll go with that.

did you ever note Kant's other summary?

Reason's goal isn't to produce happiness (it's a poor means to this end), but to produce a will that's good in itself.


in all the debates; it seems pride enriched your will

Kant tries to uncover the principles behind common sense morality. He observes that only a good will is good without qualification (always good).

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

So, the expression "God is." simply defines God as himself and everything else. Kant, attempts to place God in a box by requiring focus on the finite, rather than allowing for the infiniteness of God. To say that "God is this, and that and the other thing" still attempts to create parameters around the subject, which no longer allows for the expression of infiniteness. But to Say "God is." makes clear that God has no bounds. For the sake of the finite mind, the usual descriptor used to make the statement of infiniteness clear would be "God is everything."

But the Holy Spirit communicates through symbols. Furthermore, there is no limitation to concepts like love/omnipotence/perfection.