Socrates Faith in God the Creator in Socrates Own Words

[newpolitics]

"Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), 965–1039 Iraq. The Arab scholar who lived during the Islamic golden age is considered by some to be the father of modern scientific methodology.[4]"

From the same link listed above. NOTE THE FUCKING DATE.

If you want to question the source, or the fact that it is considered by some, go ahead. I could easily rebutt that by saying NO ONE considers the ancient greeks to have invented MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. Which was my only point!!!

 

[newpolitics]

Notice this historical assessment on the matter of when the modern scientific method was procured:

"Modern science owes its present flourishing state to a new scientific method which was fashioned by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)" —Morris Kline[5]

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Unkotare]

Wow. You guys really are stupid. I don't deny they they were begininng to think scientifically, but thats just it. They were BEGINNING to, and the philosophy was basically an attempt at finding the explanation at things without looking to god. This era was the absolute beginning of looking for natural causal explanations. They had not amassed any actual knowledge, apart from buildling things with their hands, which is different than understanding the natural world. They didn't have the knowledge of Newton, so they didn't understand basic things like Gravity. They didn't have the knowledge of copernicus, so still existed in a heliocentric universe. they didn't undertsand lighting, earthquakes, stars... EVERYTHING around them was attributed to supernatural causation. Get my drift? Good. Now will you stop asserting that these people had scientific knowledge about nature? Because, they didn't, and that's not an insult. Just truth. How could they? We had to start somewhere. They just got the methodology going.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and wait until you've studied some more before pontificating on such matters?

This is common knowledge, and I have studied this material. Granted its been a while, but again, its common knowledge. I can't even believe we are arguing about this. The real explosion of scientific knowledge did not come about until after Newton, at best, and this is also common knowledge. You're assertions defy conventional wisdom, based off a source that many of your ilk decry when convenient. (I dont', I think wikipedia is credible). With that, let me point out that you refuted your own position with the quote you posted:

"although it would be a mistake to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form."

Aritstole used induction to draw scientific "truths," without empiricism. That is not science. It was progress towards the scientific method, however.

By the way, How is this even a discussion, and why are these side matters important?!!
I feel like I'm going insane with such fucking idiots telling me the ancient greeks were scientifically advanced. If they were, then we'd be teleporting by now.

You can't focus, can't keep a discussion straight (your reply to me was in response largely to what someone else actually said), argue with straw men, and seem to have only a superficial understanding of the history inovled and a much less than that of the actual philosophy.

As I said, get some education before carrying on.

 

[newpolitics]

Why don't you do yourself a favor and wait until you've studied some more before pontificating on such matters?

This is common knowledge, and I have studied this material. Granted its been a while, but again, its common knowledge. I can't even believe we are arguing about this. The real explosion of scientific knowledge did not come about until after Newton, at best, and this is also common knowledge. You're assertions defy conventional wisdom, based off a source that many of your ilk decry when convenient. (I dont', I think wikipedia is credible). With that, let me point out that you refuted your own position with the quote you posted:

"although it would be a mistake to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form."

Aritstole used induction to draw scientific "truths," without empiricism. That is not science. It was progress towards the scientific method, however.

By the way, How is this even a discussion, and why are these side matters important?!!
I feel like I'm going insane with such fucking idiots telling me the ancient greeks were scientifically advanced. If they were, then we'd be teleporting by now.

You can't focus, can't keep a discussion straight (your reply to me was in response largely to what someone else actually said), argue with straw men, and seem to have only a superficial understanding of the history inovled and a much less than that of the actual philosophy.

As I said, get some education before carrying on.

Truth is, I'm too lazy to give a shit. They are all non-sensical points made, as far as I am concerned. I made a few simple and well-attested assertions, but amazingly, you and Jim seem to want to contest them, most recent of which was that about science and the greeks. The assertion was that science as we know it, did not exist for the greeks, because the method by which science operates was not yet invented. You humpbacked a comment by Jim to double down on his rebuttal, which contained no merit. So, here we are. You continually telling me to get educated. Uhhh... no. I read enough about other things, and don't need to research the scientific status of the ancient greeks. It is common knowledge, and it is you and Jim who have argued strawmen to what I actually claimed.

 

[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.

 

[LOki]

Why is it magic, but belief in the membrane theory of the Big Bangs origen is not magic?

Because valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence supports the assertion of the membrane theory of the Big Bangs origin.

And what makes the membrane theory valid logic but the theory of an eternal crator not?

Since no one has ever asserted that M-theory is any kind of logic, it's clear that nobody--most emphatically yourself--has any idea of what you're talking about.

Oh, thats right because you dont want to feel guilty while you engage in sodomy. I got it.

Non-sequitur much, Cupcake?

Except that there is valid logical reason for it. You simply reject it and then ignore it.

Dumbshit.

Yet despite the opportunity to do so--and validate yourself--you have failed to do so.

Why is that, Sis?

I didnt make it up, you lying peice of rancid goat shit.

The concept long predates me, jack ass.

You know anyone reading this thread can see what an absolutely ignorant fucktard yo are, so please keep it up, I am rather enjoying it. lolol

Both my bigotry and your Eternal Creator are entirely products of your imagination.

In short, you have not proven your claims, and far from it. You look ridiculous.

I don't have to prove anything, I can rest on the evidence. In short, you've predictably invoked the "burden of proof fallacy." You look retarded.

Nope, since I do have evidence there is no fallacy here, twatfaced ass hat.

Yet despite the opportunity to do so--and validate yourself--you have failed to do so.

Why is that, Sis?

 

[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.

A-Fucking-men.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Scientific methodology has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years[4] and is the process by which science is carried out. Because science builds on previous knowledge, it consistently improves our understanding of the world. The scientific method also improves itself in the same way, meaning that it gradually becomes more effective at generating new knowledge. For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.[7]"


Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is reasonable to say "at least 1,000 years" doesn't mean 2,300 years back to the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

No one said that the modern scientific method started with Aristotle and you know it, you fucking liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're really fucking retarded.

From you that is one of the best COMPLIMENTS I have ever heard.

Atomism was pure conjecture, in the sense that it could not be verified by any instrumentation. As such, it was not backed by empirical results, but based upon the idea that everything was reducible to an indestructible unit. It was arrived at through highly indirect observation and logic at the time, but it no way was this scientifically verified to be true until relatively recently. It was a genius deduction, that happened to be right, but one that could not be proven until recently with any rigor.

Of course it was conjecture, shit for brains. It was simply an example of the knowlege and ability to analyze their surrounding that some of the ancients did have. All the other accomplishments of theirs that you ignored are evidence of their practical experimentation and learning about nature.

And you are being an arrogant aass to refuse to acknowlege what they did because it might give monotheism some credit, you Christ hating bitch.

The ability to measure distances is not finding the causes for things!!!!

So what? Finding the distance is in and of itself an accomplishment, jack ass.

which is what I've been saying, explicitly, yet you are too fucking stupid to read. The ability to manipulate things to form mechanical machines is not finding the causes for things, either. They lacked the ability to properly assess the natural cause for the things we take for granted today. As such, theism occupied a larger epistemological space than it does for people that choose to pay attention to scientific discovery today. You're really frustrating!!!!

Lol, they did not have a modern scienntific explanation, of course, but they used inductive and deductive methods to pass on knowlege and to learn of nature.

Your dismissal of everything that is premodern is horse shit and you know it.

Basically, the way you interpret history is just dumb. All of your shittalking is hilarious to me, because you are so utterly biased in your interpretation of historical fact, using it to serve you're own beliefs, rather than assessing them on their own grounds and understanding them for what they truly are, in their element. It's actually intellectual dishonesty, which I am not surprised to see from someone trying to bolster their belief by referencing someone dead for 2,500 years.

In your dumbass opinion, you mean. Why should I give a flying fuck?

I'm done with you dude. It's exhausting debating someone so obviously stupid. I am simply too lazy to fact check everything, because I know you are wrong, and quite frankly, I don't give enough of a shit to debate about the scientific achievements of the ancient greeks in a discussion about fucking god. This whole thing is utterly absurd, and so are you or attempting it. Try christian apologetics, please. This is fucking retarded.

Lol, eat shit, fucktard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence supports the assertion of the membrane theory of the Big Bangs origin.

And what makes the membrane theory valid logic but the theory of an eternal crator not?

Since no one has ever asserted that M-theory is any kind of logic, it's clear that nobody--most emphatically yourself--has any idea of what you're talking about.

M-theory uses mathematical models and mathematics is a logical field of knowlege.
M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes, it is inherently logical simply based on the methods of its origin.

And of course you duck the question, 'Why is M-theory valid but the concept of an Eternal Creator invalid?

I guess you will probably duck my question again, because you are a cowardly shithead.

But you really shouldnt attack the concept of God merely because you cant live with yourself, moron.

 

[LOki]

And what makes the membrane theory valid logic but the theory of an eternal crator not?

Since no one has ever asserted that M-theory is any kind of logic, it's clear that nobody--most emphatically yourself--has any idea of what you're talking about.

M-theory uses mathematical models and mathematics is a logical field of knowlege.
M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes, it is inherently logical simply based on the methods of its origin.

It is founded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

And of course you duck the question, 'Why is M-theory valid but the concept of an Eternal Creator invalid?

I ducked nothing. The reason that M-theory valid, but the concept of an Eternal Creator invalid, is because the M-theory is founded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, and this "Eternal Creator" you posit is not.

I guess you will probably duck my question again, because you are a cowardly shithead.

Your guess is just as objectively valuable as your superstition.

But you really shouldnt attack the concept of God merely because you cant live with yourself, moron.

Sis, I'm not attacking the concept of god--I'm attacking your concept of your imaginary god being something objectively real in the objectively real world.

And I live with myself just fine, thank you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Since no one has ever asserted that M-theory is any kind of logic, it's clear that nobody--most emphatically yourself--has any idea of what you're talking about.

M-theory uses mathematical models and mathematics is a logical field of knowlege.
M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes, it is inherently logical simply based on the methods of its origin.

It is founded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I ducked nothing. The reason that M-theory valid, but the concept of an Eternal Creator invalid, is because the M-theory is founded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, and this "Eternal Creator" you posit is not.

ROFLMAO!

You just made a tautology! LOLOLOL, you are a fucking moron! M-theory is valid because it is valid, lololol, and God is not because it is not.

BWAHAHAHAH ! ! ! ! ! !

Go back to your legos and porn vids and stop wasting electrons on the internet, stupid ass.

I guess you will probably duck my question again, because you are a cowardly shithead.

Your guess is just as objectively valuable as your superstition.

Except it is not superstition, lying ass hat.

But you really shouldnt attack the concept of God merely because you cant live with yourself, moron.

Sis, I'm not attacking the concept of god--I'm attacking your concept of your imaginary god being something objectively real in the objectively real world.

And I live with myself just fine, thank you.

You are stupid enough to sit in a pile of shit, add to it and still grin like a fucking idiot.

And all that proves is that you are an idiot.

 

[LOki]

M-theory uses mathematical models and mathematics is a logical field of knowlege.
M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes, it is inherently logical simply based on the methods of its origin.

It is founded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I ducked nothing. The reason that M-theory valid, but the concept of an Eternal Creator invalid, is because the M-theory is founded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, and this "Eternal Creator" you posit is not.

ROFLMAO!

You just made a tautology! LOLOLOL, you are a fucking moron! M-theory is valid because it is valid, lololol, and God is not because it is not.

BWAHAHAHAH ! ! ! ! ! !

Go back to your legos and porn vids and stop wasting electrons on the internet, stupid ass.

The trouble you're in here Sis, is that I understand what the term "tautology" means, and you don't.

Except it is not superstition, lying ass hat.

No. I'm not lying. The trouble you're in here Sis, is that I understand what the term "lying" means, and you don't. Your belief in an "Eternal Creator" is entirely superstition, and your denials of that are all lies.

But you really shouldnt attack the concept of God merely because you cant live with yourself, moron.

Sis, I'm not attacking the concept of god--I'm attacking your concept of your imaginary god being something objectively real in the objectively real world.

And I live with myself just fine, thank you.

You are stupid enough to sit in a pile of shit, add to it and still grin like a fucking idiot.

And all that proves is that you are an idiot.

The idiot is the one who can't see that she's the superstitious pile of shit I'm sitting on.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is founded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I ducked nothing. The reason that M-theory valid, but the concept of an Eternal Creator invalid, is because the M-theory is founded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, and this "Eternal Creator" you posit is not.

ROFLMAO!

You just made a tautology! LOLOLOL, you are a fucking moron! M-theory is valid because it is valid, lololol, and God is not because it is not.

BWAHAHAHAH ! ! ! ! ! !

Go back to your legos and porn vids and stop wasting electrons on the internet, stupid ass.

The trouble you're in here Sis, is that I understand what the term "tautology" means, and you don't.

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.

No. I'm not lying. The trouble you're in here Sis, is that I understand what the term "lying" means, and you don't.

I am sure you do know what lying means, and that is why you are responsible for all the lies you keep telling, such as the one you made above about the meaning of the word tautology.

Your belief in an "Eternal Creator" is entirely superstition, and your denials of that are all lies.

Bullshit, prove. Except you wont because you cant, and you cant refute the arguments presented. All you can do is make unsupported denials and unsupported claims of superstition, etc.

Sis, I'm not attacking the concept of god--I'm attacking your concept of your imaginary god being something objectively real in the objectively real world.

And I live with myself just fine, thank you.

You are stupid enough to sit in a pile of shit, add to it and still grin like a fucking idiot.

And all that proves is that you are an idiot.

The idiot is the one who can't see that she's the superstitious pile of shit I'm sitting on.

Except you cant prove anything, refute anything, or even make an honest statemtn.

I am starting to doubt you even know what the word superstition means. Here is a hint: it does NOT mean 'disagreeing with Loki the Jack ass'.

But what is even more amazing is that you think you are avancing your cause here when you are obvioously not doing so. Any lurkers reading this thread can easily see that you have nothing to contribute, that you ignore arguments presented (other than to amke unsupported enials), and you generally have no respect at all for the consept of Truth.

It is plain that you demonstrate yourself to be a fraud, a liar, a narcisistic poseur who is too stupid to realize when he looks like a fool.

 

[ima]

Creationism=Ignorance

 

[LOki]

ROFLMAO!

You just made a tautology! LOLOLOL, you are a fucking moron! M-theory is valid because it is valid, lololol, and God is not because it is not.

BWAHAHAHAH ! ! ! ! ! !

Go back to your legos and porn vids and stop wasting electrons on the internet, stupid ass.

The trouble you're in here Sis, is that I understand what the term "tautology" means, and you don't.

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.

I am sure you do know what lying means, and that is why you are responsible for all the lies you keep telling, such as the one you made above about the meaning of the word tautology.

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?

Bullshit, prove.

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.

And you know this.

Hence, your denials of such are lies.

Except you wont because you cant, and you cant refute the arguments presented. All you can do is make unsupported denials and unsupported claims of superstition, etc.

Except I can, and I did; your arguments were entirely logical fallacy, so they refuted themselves; and my claims enjoy support in evidence and valid logic.

Since this has all been demonstrated for you before, you know it as well.

Hence, these claims of yours are lies too.

You are stupid enough to sit in a pile of shit, add to it and still grin like a fucking idiot.

And all that proves is that you are an idiot.

The idiot is the one who can't see that she's the superstitious pile of shit I'm sitting on.

Except you cant prove anything, ...

No one can prove anything by the standard you set, so this accusation is meaningless.

... refute anything, ...

Nonsense. The validity of asserting your "Eternal Creator" has been fully refuted.

... or even make an honest statemtn.

Yet another assertion based only on your belief it's true AND NOTHING ELSE.

I am starting to doubt you even know what the word superstition means. Here is a hint: it does NOT mean 'disagreeing with Loki the Jack ass'.

Of course it doesn't. I am pretty sure you're in denial of what superstition means. Hint: It doesn't mean belief founded upon valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

But what is even more amazing is that you think you are avancing your cause here when you are obvioously not doing so.

With your unknowing yet enthusiastic assistance, I am advancing my cause quite adequately; thank you.

Any lurkers reading this thread can easily see that you have nothing to contribute, ...

Nonsense. I've contributed by identifying the lack of integrity in intellectual rigor and honesty in the superstitious paradigm that your Creationist assertions belong to.

... that you ignore arguments presented (other than to amke unsupported enials), and you generally have no respect at all for the consept of Truth.

Fatuously asserted by the documented liar.

Sorry Sis, when I point out the factual and logical fallacies of an argument, that's NOT ignoring them or making unsupported denials.

It is plain that you demonstrate yourself to be a fraud, a liar, a narcisistic poseur who is too stupid to realize when he looks like a fool.

Only in your imagination, Cupcake. Validated only by your imaginary friend.

 

[Sallow]

Gotta love it.

Now Socrates was religious and wasn't a polytheist.

He was a Jew.



Any more re-writes?

Maybe you can cast him as a Christian..or Mormon.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Creationism=Ignorance

ima = bullshit liar

 

[JimBowie1958]

Gotta love it.

Now Socrates was religious and wasn't a polytheist.

He was a Jew.



Any more re-writes?

Maybe you can cast him as a Christian..or Mormon.

Who the fuck said he was a Jew, ass hat?

Jesus Christ, you fucking moron, if your analytical abilities are no better than that, just fuck off.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The trouble you're in here Sis, is that I understand what the term "tautology" means, and you don't.

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

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.

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 arational concept.

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

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.

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

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.

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