Socrates Faith in God the Creator in Socrates Own Words

[LOki]

No, dumbass, the meaning of the word tautology has nothing to do with creationism. It simply means that you are making a circular argument, which you probably know, but dont care because you are a lying fraud.

Yet you fail to demonstrate this "lie", despite the opportunity to do so.

Could this just be yet another example of you believing you're right, just because you believe you're right?

No, but you saying that a belief in God is invalid because it is invalid is an example of a tautology, and you keep repeating it. Imbecile.

But that's not what I said. Is this another strawman, or could this just be yet another example of you believing you're right, just because you believe you're right?

Your belief in the existence of your "Eternal Creator" is unfounded upon and unsupported by any verifable evidence and or valid logic; in fact, it is entirely in contradiction to valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence, hence superstition.

No, it isnt, and Aristotle and Aquinas both gave very detailed responses, explaining why they believed God was a rational concept.

And Aristotle's and Aquinas' "rational" concepts of gods have been long demonstrated to be (very detailed, yet still) garden variety question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rationalizations for some gods.

That you dont understand it because you are a fucking moron doesnt mean anything other than that you are a moron.

I understand it quite well, thank you. The fact that you refuse to disabuse yourself of logical fallacy as the BEDROCK of your claims to validity, is sufficient evidence to earn you the title, "retard."

And you know this.

And this is another example of you lying. I know the exact opposite and have stated so consistently through this whole thread.

Nope. Despite EVERY OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate this belief of your is no superstition, you have failed to do so. Hence, you're still a liar.

That you persist in telling such lies is the epitome of your participation on this thread.

Nope. Never happened. Demonstrate that I have lied, and I will apologize and correct my error.

Until then, you're bearing false witness against me. Have fun in hell.

This is because you have nothing to offer but can only troll like an idiot.

Please, go fuck yourself...no, really go fuck yourself to hell.

Nope.

You are a disgrace to the human species...a fucking fraud, liar, hypocrit and probably a gerbil molester.

You have clearly been thoroughly beaten, Sis. Put on a fresh diaper, and take a nap.

Nite, nite, Pumpkin.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yet you fail to demonstrate this "lie", despite the opportunity to do so.

Could this just be yet another example of you believing you're right, just because you believe you're right?

No, but you saying that a belief in God is invalid because it is invalid is an example of a tautology, and you keep repeating it. Imbecile.

But that's not what I said. Is this another strawman, or could this just be yet another example of you believing you're right, just because you believe you're right?

No, when you state that the concept of God is invalid because the logic is invalid is circular. God as am abstract concept can only be valid or invalid logically as there is no other way to invalidate the concept of God. So your statement simplifies down to 'the concept of God is invalid because the concept of God is invalid.'

You know this but you still bloviate to infinity with your lies, and hypocrital posturing as though the Truth matters to you and you just want to discuss the topic. Total bullshit. You are a troll and a poseur and the lowest form of human being.

And Aristotle's and Aquinas' "rational" concepts of gods have been long demonstrated to be (very detailed, yet still) garden variety question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rationalizations for some gods.

Providing a list of fallacies is not a rebutal, dumbfuck. You also have to show *why* the referenced argument falls into those fallacies.

But since you are a moron and a fraud you have no trouble with your miniscule conscience when you throw this shit up to see what sticks.

I understand it quite well, thank you. The fact that you refuse to disabuse yourself of logical fallacy as the BEDROCK of your claims to validity, is sufficient evidence to earn you the title, "retard."

If you had ever shown how one of your claimed fallacies apply you would have a point. But since all you have done is link to their definition, you demonstrate and refute nothing. Well, you do demonstrate that you are a lying idiot, but other than that nothing.

Nope. Despite EVERY OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate this belief of your is no superstition, you have failed to do so. Hence, you're still a liar.

I pointed out the rationality of the concept of God by illustrating how Greek philosophers came to a belief in an Eternal Creator despite no appeal to a revalation or religious authority, in fact, they disagreeed with the religious authorities of their day.

So, again, you lie.

Nope. Never happened. Demonstrate that I have lied, and I will apologize and correct my error.

This whole thread where you claim I have made no assertion supported by any evidence when the OP does exactly that.

Until then, you're bearing false witness against me. Have fun in hell.

I might go to hell, but I doubt it would bother me that much. Gehena is a punishment not so much because of the possibly allegorical fires, but because it is full of assholes like you.

This is because you have nothing to offer but can only troll like an idiot.

Please, go fuck yourself...no, really go fuck yourself to hell.

Nope.

You are a disgrace to the human species...a fucking fraud, liar, hypocrit and probably a gerbil molester.

You have clearly been thoroughly beaten, Sis. Put on a fresh diaper, and take a nap.

Nite, nite, Pumpkin.

Beaten? lolol, I dont care if I am beaten. I have lost many arguements in my life, but guess what, ass hat? They benefited me when I lost them because they provoked me to dig deeper and think more on what I had once thought true. Sometimes I remained with my original opinion, sometimes I changed my mind, but it was never about me 'beating' the other guy. It was about me learning and growing as a person. I know you cant grasp that notion, as it would require you to shed some of your galactic ego first, lol.

Your statement about beating me in this thread is about as strong a proof that you are all ego -driven bullshit rhetorical nonsense here and nothing more.

Your pretense at being honest, trying to exchange thoughts, searching for Truth, these things that are normal part of useful discussion is no more than an act on your part. You just gave yourself away, bitch.

ROFLMAO

 

[newpolitics]

Truth is, I'm too lazy to give a shit. Uhhh... no. I read enough about other things, and don't need to research the scientific status of the ancient greeks.

Then shut the fuck up, you ignorant turd.

A-Fucking-men.

Not as long as you idiots are trying to convince others that you're bullshit is correct

 

[newpolitics]

Truth is, I'm too lazy to give a shit. Uhhh... no. I read enough about other things, and don't need to research the scientific status of the ancient greeks.

Then shut the fuck up, you ignorant turd.

I don't need to research that which is common knowledge. You're assessment of history is hilariously inaccurate, if you think anyone before the modern age understood the universe anywhere near what we know today.

You're example was: "They measured the distance to the moon." That's really impressive, but... they didn't know what the moon was, which was my point.

Democritus' atomism is NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, not a science. It provided no testable evidence, because they had no method or technology to acquire such knowledge. Nor did this theory allow predictions, a major component of scientific theories. In the end, he, and all greeks were wrong. Atoms are divisible, into electrons, protons, etc... further divisible into quarks, leptons, bosons, etc... not that this is their fault, they didn't have science and technology.

So, I can refute you point for point, if I really want, but this is so asinine that I would even have to, considering this entire thread is totally ridiculous, trying to prove that belief in god is rational because socrates did, because in reality, he didn't. He was a polytheist, like every other greek. My head is spinning with how stupid this place can be.

 

[Unkotare]

Then shut the fuck up, you ignorant turd.

A-Fucking-men.

Not as long as you idiots are trying to convince others that you're[sic] bullshit is correct

Since you are admittedly too lazy to educate yourself on the topic, you've really got nothing to say, kid.

 

[Unkotare]

Truth is, I'm too lazy to give a shit. Uhhh... no. I read enough about other things, and don't need to research the scientific status of the ancient greeks.

Then shut the fuck up, you ignorant turd.

I don't need to research that which is common knowledge.

That is a weak excuse for remaining an ignorant turd. You lack in knowledge, common or otherwise.

 

[newpolitics]

A-Fucking-men.

Not as long as you idiots are trying to convince others that you're[sic] bullshit is correct

Since you are admittedly too lazy to educate yourself on the topic, you've really got nothing to say, kid.

I don't need to educate myself about something that is common knowledge.

Are you actually claiming that the greeks had scientific knowledge sufficient to explain the world around them accurately? If you are and you can prove, you'd turn history on itself head, and you'd be rich. if not, then stop talking shit.

 

[newpolitics]

Then shut the fuck up, you ignorant turd.

I don't need to research that which is common knowledge.

That is a weak excuse for remaining an ignorant turd. You lack in knowledge, common or otherwise.

That's funny. Considering you are on the wrong side of common knowledge, I'd say it is you that needs to brush up on your history, pal.

I seriously can't believe we arguing about this. Do we even know what we are arguing about? Do you even know what my position is??!!! No!!! So SHUT THE FUCK UP. You're arguing against a strawman.

 

[Unkotare]

Not as long as you idiots are trying to convince others that you're[sic] bullshit is correct

Since you are admittedly too lazy to educate yourself on the topic, you've really got nothing to say, kid.

I don't need to educate myself about something that is common knowledge.

You don't have any, kid.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't need to research that which is common knowledge.

That is a weak excuse for remaining an ignorant turd. You lack in knowledge, common or otherwise.

That's funny. Considering you are on the wrong side of common knowledge, I'd say it is you that needs to brush up on your history, pal.

This from the dopey kid who admits he's too damn lazy to bother learning what he's talking about? You're a joke, kid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is a weak excuse for remaining an ignorant turd. You lack in knowledge, common or otherwise.

That's funny. Considering you are on the wrong side of common knowledge, I'd say it is you that needs to brush up on your history, pal.

This from the dopey kid who admits he's too damn lazy to bother learning what he's talking about? You're a joke, kid.

And a weak sorry joke at that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's funny. Considering you are on the wrong side of common knowledge, I'd say it is you that needs to brush up on your history, pal.

That the ancients made a lot of technological and scientific progress is beyond doubt. That it wasnt up to modern standards is because we have improved on what they began.

That you dismiss their accomplishments for rhetorical purposes simply shows what a fucking liar and fraud you are.

I seriously can't believe we arguing about this. Do we even know what we are arguing about? Do you even know what my position is??!!! No!!! So SHUT THE FUCK UP. You're arguing against a strawman.

You have no position other than that there is absolutely no validity to the concept of God and the ancients were a bunch of dumbasses.

In short, you are an ignorant fool.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Truth is, I'm too lazy to give a shit. Uhhh... no. I read enough about other things, and don't need to research the scientific status of the ancient greeks.

Then shut the fuck up, you ignorant turd.

I don't need to research that which is common knowledge. You're assessment of history is hilariously inaccurate, if you think anyone before the modern age understood the universe anywhere near what we know today.

No one is saying that they knew as much as we do today, ass hole.

Seems that you cant make a point unless it is against things you invent yourself.

You're example was: "They measured the distance to the moon." That's really impressive, but... they didn't know what the moon was, which was my point.

There is always a next step to knowlege, Learn A there is always a bunch of B's. Learn B's and there are even more C's. That is how science works, and your 'point' about the Greeks not knowing what the moon is is simply irrelevant to the plain FACT that the ancients had made some incredible calculations considering their lack of tools.

Democritus' atomism is NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, not a science.

Lol, you dumbass, science *is* 'natural philosophy', lolol, or a specialization of.

Natural philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences such as physics.

Forms of science historically developed out of philosophy or, more specifically, natural philosophy. At older universities, long-established Chairs of Natural Philosophy are nowadays occupied mainly by physics professors.

It provided no testable evidence, because they had no method or technology to acquire such knowledge. Nor did this theory allow predictions, a major component of scientific theories. In the end, he, and all greeks were wrong. Atoms are divisible, into electrons, protons, etc... further divisible into quarks, leptons, bosons, etc... not that this is their fault, they didn't have science and technology.

Yes, the Greek concept of the atom was that it was the smallest natural divisible unit in nature, and they are right except for unnatural processes that scientists can subject atoms to that break them down to their components. But if the Greeks were wrong because they 'missed' that, then all science at any given moment is wrong because it can always be added to and improved upon.

So, I can refute you point for point, if I really want, but this is so asinine that I would even have to, considering this entire thread is totally ridiculous,...

Except that you havent refuted anything outside of your own imagination.

trying to prove that belief in god is rational because socrates did, because in reality, he didn't. He was a polytheist, like every other greek. My head is spinning with how stupid this place can be.

No, he was not a polytheist and the given reasons for that assertions that were never rebutted by you other than your typical blanket unsupported denials.

It may come as a shock to you, but you really do not define what is true and what is not because you can act like an ignorant jerk.

Twat face.

 

[LOki]

No, but you saying that a belief in God is invalid because it is invalid is an example of a tautology, and you keep repeating it. Imbecile.

But that's not what I said. Is this another strawman, or could this just be yet another example of you believing you're right, just because you believe you're right?

No, when you state that the concept of God is invalid because the logic is invalid is circular.

I never said the concept of god was invalid, Sis. You're lying again.
[EDIT: It appears that I got caught using your term (concept) in my response to you. In doing so, I misspoke. Apologies. The "lie" accusation is hereby retracted.

The "concept" of god(s) is clearly not invalid. The assertions of their verifiable and logically valid existence however, remains invalid until such validity is produced.]

God as am abstract concept can only be valid or invalid logically as there is no other way to invalidate the concept of God.

I never said the concept of god was invalid.

So your statement simplifies down to 'the concept of God is invalid because the concept of God is invalid.'

No. It doesn't. Your strawman has failed.

You know this but you still bloviate to infinity with your lies, and hypocrital posturing as though the Truth matters to you and you just want to discuss the topic. Total bullshit. You are a troll and a poseur and the lowest form of human being.

Yet despite having EVERY OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate I've lied, you fail to do so. It's just hilarious, to watch you struggle with your lack of intellectual integrity.

Providing a list of fallacies is not a rebutal, dumbfuck. You also have to show *why* the referenced argument falls into those fallacies.

But since you are a moron and a fraud you have no trouble with your miniscule conscience when you throw this shit up to see what sticks.

All right Pumpkin, I'll hold your chubby little hand.

"First cause." Special-Pleading Appeal to Ignorance. If Aquinas and Aristotle can claim that this "Creator" of theirs does not require a first cause, I can claim the same for the universe without having to fabricate a universe from my imagination.

"God(s)." Question-Begging Appeal to Ignorance. When Aquinas and Aristotle imbue their first-cause with creativity to claim all of "creation" is evidence of a creator; that the grand majesty of the universe must necessarily be created by some greater majesty, they are just putting their conclusion ("creator") in premises ("creation" "created").

If you had ever shown how one of your claimed fallacies apply you would have a point. But since all you have done is link to their definition, you demonstrate and refute nothing. Well, you do demonstrate that you are a lying idiot, but other than that nothing.

Looks like you just got refuted again.

I pointed out the rationality of the concept of God by illustrating how Greek philosophers came to a belief in an Eternal Creator despite no appeal to a revalation or religious authority, in fact, they disagreeed with the religious authorities of their day.

So, again, you lie.

Oh? Your appeal to authorities who didn't appeal to authority. Gotcha.

This whole thread where you claim I have made no assertion supported by any evidence when the OP does exactly that.

No. I said:

Despite EVERY OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate this belief of yours is no superstition, you have failed to do so. Hence, you're still a liar.​

You have in no way produced evidence that the reality of god(s) is in any way rational because Socrates said so, Aristotle said so, or Aquinas said so. You're just saying it's rational because you believe it to be so, and nothing else.

I might go to hell, but I doubt it would bother me that much. Gehena is a punishment not so much because of the possibly allegorical fires, but because it is full of assholes like you.

You'll regret saying that, because I'm bringing the beer.

Nope.

You are a disgrace to the human species...a fucking fraud, liar, hypocrit and probably a gerbil molester.

You have clearly been thoroughly beaten, Sis. Put on a fresh diaper, and take a nap.

Nite, nite, Pumpkin.

Beaten? lolol, I dont care if I am beaten. I have lost many arguements in my life, but guess what, ass hat?

This is another one? Pretty good guess, right?

They benefited me when I lost them because they provoked me to dig deeper and think more on what I had once thought true. Sometimes I remained with my original opinion, sometimes I changed my mind, but it was never about me 'beating' the other guy. It was about me learning and growing as a person.

It was probably an accident, but this is the only sensible thing you've posted in this thread so far. You should keep doing more of it rather than the other shit you're posting.

I know you cant grasp that notion, as it would require you to shed some of your galactic ego first, lol.

Your statement about beating me in this thread is about as strong a proof that you are all ego -driven bullshit rhetorical nonsense here and nothing more.

The one with an ego problem is you, who keeps asserting your unsubstantiated opinions and judgments about me as fact of reality--to be accepted as fact of reality just because you say it is so.

Your pretense at being honest, trying to exchange thoughts, searching for Truth, these things that are normal part of useful discussion is no more than an act on your part. You just gave yourself away, bitch.

ROFLMAO

Really? Despite every opportunity you've had to demonstrate the validity of your accusation, you fail to do so; and you have substantiated every accusation regarding your dishonesty in the process. How's that working out for you, Sis?

 

[newpolitics]

That's funny. Considering you are on the wrong side of common knowledge, I'd say it is you that needs to brush up on your history, pal.

This from the dopey kid who admits he's too damn lazy to bother learning what he's talking about? You're a joke, kid.

And a weak sorry joke at that.

Are you guys fingering each other in the ass, as your typing?

 

[newpolitics]

Then shut the fuck up, you ignorant turd.

I don't need to research that which is common knowledge. You're assessment of history is hilariously inaccurate, if you think anyone before the modern age understood the universe anywhere near what we know today.

No one is saying that they knew as much as we do today, ass hole.

Seems that you cant make a point unless it is against things you invent yourself.



There is always a next step to knowlege, Learn A there is always a bunch of B's. Learn B's and there are even more C's. That is how science works, and your 'point' about the Greeks not knowing what the moon is is simply irrelevant to the plain FACT that the ancients had made some incredible calculations considering their lack of tools.



Lol, you dumbass, science *is* 'natural philosophy', lolol, or a specialization of.

Natural philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Yes, the Greek concept of the atom was that it was the smallest natural divisible unit in nature, and they are right except for unnatural processes that scientists can subject atoms to that break them down to their components. But if the Greeks were wrong because they 'missed' that, then all science at any given moment is wrong because it can always be added to and improved upon.

So, I can refute you point for point, if I really want, but this is so asinine that I would even have to, considering this entire thread is totally ridiculous,...

Except that you havent refuted anything outside of your own imagination.

trying to prove that belief in god is rational because socrates did, because in reality, he didn't. He was a polytheist, like every other greek. My head is spinning with how stupid this place can be.

No, he was not a polytheist and the given reasons for that assertions that were never rebutted by you other than your typical blanket unsupported denials.

It may come as a shock to you, but you really do not define what is true and what is not because you can act like an ignorant jerk.

Twat face.

Are you slightly retarded?

 

[Unkotare]

This from the dopey kid who admits he's too damn lazy to bother learning what he's talking about? You're a joke, kid.

And a weak sorry joke at that.

Are you guys fingering each other in the ass, as your[sic] typing?

Now we know why you're too 'busy' to educate yourself, ignorant turd.

 

[newpolitics]

And a weak sorry joke at that.

Are you guys fingering each other in the ass, as your[sic] typing?

Now we know why you're too 'busy' to educate yourself, ignorant turd.

Did you get it out of your system so we can we stop this nonsense, and get back to debating? Cool.

 

[Unkotare]

Is this ignorant kid still here? ...........................

 

[newpolitics]

Is this ignorant kid still here? ...........................

who the fuck are you?