Traditional values

[Marc O'Brien]

but I don't know how you get to "idolatry" because something or someone is not fully knowable. Seems like you're stretching to me.

Well, you have absolutely zero evidence of any Gods. In which case you have no idea whatsoever what such a thing would look like, be like, talk like, feel like etc. Anything you say therefore will be idolatry. If, for example, God is not a being but is being then anyone who thinks God is a being is being idolatrous. Any representation of the unknown is idolatry.

Notice, though, I said I know God to the extent that He has revealed Himself or to the extent that my finite mind has attempted to seek Him out. Which means there is much more to know & in no way disproves His existence.

Idolatry!

Almost sounds like you're upset that belief requires faith & that not everything is "proveable". But it doesn't matter: Even when proof is provided some people still choose not to believe.

Belief, the sense that I employ, does not require faith, try believe the moon doesn't exist. Have a bash. Try believe it doesn't exist. If you struggle to believe it doesn't exist then try apply faith to the task - try have faith that it doesn't exist. Belief requires evidence. There is not a single thought that a human has that is not a belief. First hand sensory acquaintances are not thoughts and so are the only cognitive attribute that is not a belief - all the rest is belief. Faith on the other hand, in the sense that you use it, where it means prejudice, to pre-judge, to decide what is true without even a single shred of evidence - that is not a belief - that is willful ignorance.

[acmanko]

I thought everybody knew God was a white Italian looking person

[glennac]

I thought everybody knew God was a white Italian looking person

No one knows what God looks like ace and it sure isn't the "God Father". We have an idea what Jesus looks like.

Jesus





God Father not to be confused with God ace.

[adamste81]

Yes, faith is the ultimate evil. It is acting in a consequential way upon something of which so far is utterly unknown in that there is precisely 0% evidence for it - not less and not more but exactly 0% evidence for.

so all the philosophical nonsense you speak, you lived during that time period and lived with aristotle? or you believe, based on what you read and from historians, that what they are telling you aristotle said is truth......thus you base your beliefs in your philosphical ways on FAITH that it is all truth. The same thing a christian does with the bible.

You just do not understand what you mean and so actually can't yet begin to understand what I mean.

that makes no sense.

[Marc O'Brien]

so all the philosophical nonsense you speak.

Show me which was nonsense.

[Marc O'Brien]

so all the philosophical nonsense you speak, you lived during that time period and lived with aristotle? or you believe, based on what you read and from historians, that what they are telling you aristotle said is truth......thus you base your beliefs in your philosphical ways on FAITH that it is all truth. The same thing a christian does with the bible.
that makes no sense.

Adamste81, you haven't answered my request to show me what I said that is nonsense.

You don't seem to appreciate the value of philosophy's ability to validate statements on their own - independent of their sources. If Aristotle said that 2+2=4 and we were to establish that what he meant by each of these symbols was understood then we could varify the validity of the statement independent of the source.

What is philosophy? In this context that is. Well, the truth is that philosophy cannot actually give new information about anything. Philosophy has the task of analysis and clarification. It looks at the words people use and analyses them, showing their logical implications. By doing so, philosophy clarifies otherwise muddled thought.

Philosophy is a tool with which to expose nonsense and express ideas in a way that is unambiguous as possible.

Employing philosophical rigour and insisting on clarity of argument can only improve matters. As in all areas of philosophy there is no guarantee that clear argument will provide convincing answers to the difficult questions but it will increase the chances of this happening.

Consider Pascals Wager. The saddest piece of logic. It takes a rather grim view of God. Who will punish or reward according to a persons belief. And a rather less attractive view of the religious life treating it as a mild inconvenience rather than something of value and enjoyable in itself. Fear of hell may drive people to believe but that is hardly wholehearted belief in God. Anyway, one cannot "choose" to believe anything, try believe the moon does not exist.

There are many things that Plato and Aristotle said that is just plain bull ****. But it is a seriously demented thing to dismiss everything a person says just because you might know them to have been mistaken on one or other matter. Each matter must be judged on its own merits. If it stands as valid and sound then you should at least have the common decency to credit that person with being the first known to have made such a statement. Even if you know them to have balls'd up on any other matters. At least they tried and even occasionally succeeded.