Rebuttal to immanuel kant.

Immanuel Kant is, along with David Hume, one of those philosophers who helped found modern scientism, probably the most incoherent philosophical thesis created to date.

In his book: "Criticize Pure Reason", Kant discusses whether pure understanding is enough to understand the world, and concludes that it is not.

To defend this Kant uses something he calls "antinomials", arguments that are (presumably) equally reasonable, and that (presumably) lead to contradictions.

The problem however is that Kant's antinomies are not contradictory to each other, an example that Kant applied were the arguments for or against whether the universe had a beginning, some argued that, if the universe had a beginning, Why should it start at a point? The others argued that if the universe was eternal, why should it not start at a point? However, these arguments do not indicate that the universe has or has not started in such a way. rational, both are fallacies of ignorance, then, the antinomials of Kant, fail to demonstrate the inefficiency of pure reason.

Finally, I will show that pure thought is enough to decipher reality: 1. The reasoning about something, must exist about something, if you think about the earth (for example) the opinion will be based on something, that something will be the earth. 2. things are supported on something, what is on earth is supported on earth. 3.la things that are held on the same are within reach of others. 4.las things are within the reach of pure reason.