Gees… you err on so many levels simultaneously. First, you seem to be conflating “illusion” with “delusion”. Especially in Kant’s day, a “illusion” was not a necessarily incorrect imagining. An illusion was simply something that was not actually witnessed by the senses (much like most of what you believe that you read). For example, the image in your mind of a gravitational field pulling a rock toward the Earth, is an illusion. It is an illusion because you cannot actually see a gravitational field. You deduce that the field is there and then might imagine what it would look like if you could see it. As it turns out, all of Newton’s forces are illusions, as well as Einstein’s Relativity ontology, and especially Quantum Physics ontology.
But beyond that, merely because one has never seen a unicorn, doesn’t mean that a unicorn “is impossible”
You claim that I am narrow minded because you can only see your own warped view thus maintain the illusion that if I disagree it can only be because I am incapable of seeing it too. You maintain the illusion that you are right, despite the extreme amount of rationale that everyone has posted displaying the errors in your reasoning.
ALL of what you have been posting is illusionary.
You have the illusion that such actually means anything. People study writings all of their lives and still argue view points that contradict others who have done the same. We have a number of Nietzsche worshipers at this site who quite often argue over what Nietzsche actually mean by what was said and have been doing so for some 10 years.
I couldn’t care less if you spent 100 years studying Kant. When you are wrong, you are wrong.
And sense you imagine yourself such a postmodern intellectual, look up “Nullius in verba”
Again, try to pay attention to what you read without so much presumptuous bias. I did NOT say that I am more educated. Read it again.
It is very stupid to equate ‘God’ = wisdom, truth, logic or reason, then condemn those who insist God is impossible as illogical, irrational, against reason & truth and the likes.
This is the most stupidest idea I have come across in a philosophical discussion.
Sorry, but the claim that you just made is “stupid” and senseless, not to mention again of its ignorance.
Wisdom, truth, logic and reason are very specific philosophical topics with their own specific definition and has no direct association with an illusory God.
So the hatefully, presumptuously bias and undereducated would imagine.
Note how ‘god’ is used in other ways;
[list]-a person or thing of supreme value
So you’re saying that Truth, Logic, and Wisdom have never had supreme value to anyone??? Even to those you image to have been senseless moneys?
The thought there is a Reality above and more powerful than the magic show was once a new thought.
-a powerful ruler
And you don’t think that Truth (aka “Reality”) is not the true, supreme ruler of your universe??? You think the universe was created by and obeys lies? You believe that there is a power above Reality???
As I stated before, you are supporting the magic worshipers that you profess to be against.
In this OP, I have explained and defined what is the idea of God is taken to be.
Out of ignorance, sure.
Many people have explained your ignorance to you.
You are so arrogant as to imagine yourself more clever and wise than all of them, yet cannot seem to come up with actual valid logic (or even know what it is). You have been wrong in so many ways, I can’t even keep track of them.
Note I raised the OP and it is up to me to define what is God with reference to this topic.
That is partially true. You have the authority to choose WHICH definition of “God” you are trying to refute. But then as a part of that, you would have to prove which claims about God were referring to your defined God verses any other. And more importantly, something you have ignored, is that your “definition” must not be ambiguous, which it is, as you have been told many times.
Your erroneous claim is that THE ONE GOD of the Bible is the one that you have ambiguously defined.
==========================
And then you continue your display of ignorance with this:
To clue you in, in the Critique of Reason, Kant raised a detailed chapter [N K Smith] regarding;
Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason …
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
Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon Speculative Principles of Reason . . . . . 525
In every single case, Kant was stating that coming up with a PROOF was impossible. He never said that God was impossible.
Obviously you do not understand Kant.
Yet you maintain such an illusion.
And then beyond that, Kant happens to be wrong about that conclusion. Even Thomas Aquinas came up with 5 such proofs. Being clueless when it comes to logic, you wouldn’t be able to argue against Aquinas either way. And there are greater proofs than those.