We are conscious and have a sort of group consciousness but how should we be able to KNOW what GOD could or could not do?
Kant also wrote, "The claims to freedom of will made even by common reason are founded on the consciousness and the admitted suposition that reason is independent on merely subjectively determined causes which together consitute what belongs to sensation only, and which consequently come under the general designation of sensibility. Man considering himself in this way as an intelligence, places himself thereby in a different order of things and in a relation to determining grounds of a wholly different kind when on the one hand he thinks of himself as an intelligence endowed with a will, and consequently with causality, and when on the other he percieves himself as a phenomenon in the world of sense(as he really is also), and affirms that his causality is subject to external determination according to the laws of nature. Now he soon becomes aware that both can hold good, nay, must hold good at the same time..."
but from both of this to think we can say what would be perfect for god we cant or at least I cant besides I am still perplexed why it is that Gould thought it important to point out that Creationists couldnt explain why bad things happening to animals and disfigurations in form were to be explained. I for one cant see why the strange morphologies or mutations are not SEEN as perfect or at least part of algorithms that might approach some ideal of perfection in man's willing sense.
The quote it from FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS by I.KANT translated by T.K. Abbot. I dont think it insignificant that you were asking about what we we knew GOD could or couldnt do where/when the translator at the sentence before I broke of the quote said in a footnote "The puncutation of the original gives the following sense: "Submits his causality, as regards its external determination, to laws of nature."..."
So sure just change you thread head from submission to affirmation and then I think the side note makes the kind. I think Kant simply meant submission as in the profession of the scientist but I might be wrong.