Socrates Faith in God the Creator in Socrates Own Words

[Aristotle]

For the last time Socrates was not a monotheist in the since that Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs are, and even if he was his God would be the Demiurge not the Abrahamic God, two entirely different deities with different attributes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

For the last time Socrates was not a monotheist in the since that Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs are, and even if he was his God would be the Demiurge not the Abrahamic God, two entirely different deities with different attributes.

I dont think that anyone is claiming that Socrates worshipped the God of Abraham. At least I am not.

To a certain degree all concepts of God that are monotheistic and referenced as Creators are just different names of the same God, IMO.

So while I agree that Socrates did not worship Jehovah, I think he did hold to a monotheistic concept of a Creator that his students championed to the world after his death.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

who the fuck are you?

You havent found that street to play in yet, ass wipe?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Your telling lies, making irrelevant references to false logic, and deliberate distortions of what people have said is not debate.

You are merely trolling and I am glad to see it as you discredit your cause more than a thousand arguments can do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you slightly retarded?

Dont project your shit on me, fucktard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

More projection.

You do realize that normal people dont do that shit, right?

 

[newpolitics]

Are you slightly retarded?

Dont project your shit on me, fucktard.

then try to read what I wrote, and stop misrepresenting what I am writing, and then talking shit about it. The only point I have been trying to make, was that the ancients were wrong about nearly everything about the universe. I simply try to establish a cause for this, being that they had not developed the modern scientific method. I am not badmouthing the greeks, so don't make me out to be an asshole for stating a historical fact. They were wonderfully advanced in many other ways and contributed massively to the society we have today. I love studying the greeks and ancient greek philosophy, so I take great offense to you're unfounded charges. You seem to take such great offense to this, that you feel compelled in bad mouthing me. Don't be surprised when you're posts are met with such skepticism and disdain out of the gates.

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, lets try a redo then.

then try to read what I wrote, and stop misrepresenting what I am writing, and then talking shit about it. The only point I have been trying to make, was that the ancients were wrong about nearly everything about the universe.

The dynamic growth of scientific knowlege is such that the more we learn, the more we come into knowlege of things we do not know. We always no the answers to a set of questions that is far smaller than the set of questions we have answers to, and all the answers we think we have we know are wrong in some way as science brings us closer and closer to a perfect udnerstanding that we will never actually have in full.

To say that people taking an inductive/deductive approach to studying the unvierse are wrong about nearly everything in the universe is characteristic of every generation.

To single out the Greeks as having this disadvantage in some unique way is wrroneous as they took what they had far further than most generations do.

I simply try to establish a cause for this, being that they had not developed the modern scientific method.

They did not have a formal process, that is true, but they did have an ineductive/deductive process that was a huge step toward the scientific method and should bring them some credit instead of dismissal.

I am not badmouthing the greeks, so don't make me out to be an asshole for stating a historical fact. They were wonderfully advanced in many other ways and contributed massively to the society we have today. I love studying the greeks and ancient greek philosophy, so I take great offense to you're unfounded charges.

Whether or not my claims about your characterization was uncharitable I wont argue in the spirit of having a better discussion.

You seem to take such great offense to this, that you feel compelled in bad mouthing me.

It is more the pattern of not offering arguments and evidence for your claims than the disrespect toward the Greeks that puts me off, though I dont care for the dissing of the Greeks also.

Don't be surprised when you're posts are met with such skepticism and disdain out of the gates.

I never am when I discuss anything with secularists. Usually they dont have the experience of being put in a position to actually provide support for their claims against and asking them to do so seems to get them into monkey shit throwing mode.

Looking forward to seeing if this discussion can be restored to something worthwhile.

I am skeptical but will give it a shot.

 

[newpolitics]

OK, lets try a redo then.

then try to read what I wrote, and stop misrepresenting what I am writing, and then talking shit about it. The only point I have been trying to make, was that the ancients were wrong about nearly everything about the universe.

The dynamic growth of scientific knowlege is such that the more we learn, the more we come into knowlege of things we do not know. We always no the answers to a set of questions that is far smaller than the set of questions we have answers to, and all the answers we think we have we know are wrong in some way as science brings us closer and closer to a perfect udnerstanding that we will never actually have in full.

To say that people taking an inductive/deductive approach to studying the unvierse are wrong about nearly everything in the universe is characteristic of every generation.

To single out the Greeks as having this disadvantage in some unique way is wrroneous as they took what they had far further than most generations do.

I simply try to establish a cause for this, being that they had not developed the modern scientific method.

They did not have a formal process, that is true, but they did have an ineductive/deductive process that was a huge step toward the scientific method and should bring them some credit instead of dismissal.



Whether or not my claims about your characterization was uncharitable I wont argue in the spirit of having a better discussion.

You seem to take such great offense to this, that you feel compelled in bad mouthing me.

It is more the pattern of not offering arguments and evidence for your claims than the disrespect toward the Greeks that puts me off, though I dont care for the dissing of the Greeks also.

Don't be surprised when you're posts are met with such skepticism and disdain out of the gates.

I never am when I discuss anything with secularists. Usually they dont have the experience of being put in a position to actually provide support for their claims against and asking them to do so seems to get them into monkey shit throwing mode.

Looking forward to seeing if this discussion can be restored to something worthwhile.

I am skeptical but will give it a shot.

I agree with much of what you are saying, which is why I was frustrated that you were explaining it to me as if I didn't. I understand that science is a cumulative process. I was trying elucidate the idea that scientific knowledge, if you were to chart it on a graph as a curve, would have been extraordinarily slow, until the time of Galileo and Copernicus, which is really when our first discoveries of the natural world happened, and would have starting to spike ever since then. Once you hit the enlightenment, our knowledge would have skyrocketed exponentially to where we are today. This is due to a few key discoveries as well as the utilization of the scientific method. I would agree that greek rationality and philosophy was influential in the formation of the modern scientific method, but not that they possessed it, yet, or had the initial landmark discoveries that started a cascade of subsequent discoveries that we saw after Galileo. What I find ironic about your position, is that you are arguing for the existence of god, yet it is precisely this belief in god, and christianity specifically, which has halted scientific process, and even reversed it (the dark ages). This point is irrelevant the existence of god, but it is important nonetheless. Anyway, that was a jab, but let's get back to the initial thread topic now that we have this settled.

You can not prove or know that socrates existed, to the same degree that we know Plato or Aristotle existed. This is important, but if we are to assume he did, just for the sake of moving this discussion forward, then you are still left with proving he was monotheistic, and then further, finding out the nature of that monotheistic being.

I understand that your point is to say, he arrived at the conclusion of a monotheistic being because he used rational thought, and therefore, it is rational to conclude such a thing. (Correct me if I'm wrong, or fill in anything I left out, please.) That seems to be your goal. This is an appeal to authority, even if Socrates believed as you think he did. He wasn't necessarily right in doing so, just because he was the almighty Socrates. This is why I suggested you try some better apologetic arguments used by christian apologists, such as the cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental arguments. They are very compelling arguments and use syllogistic logic. Anyway, I suppose I should state my position: I find you're argument terribly unconvincing, and I reacted angrily to it because I wanted to "bash some christians," I admit. I came from a place of ego, and it was wrong. I got flustered, so flustered in fact that I didn't want to follow up on your rebuttals, instead re-asserting my claims without really backing them up, making me a hypocrite of sorts. I really am only interesting in good, rigorous debate, but I let my anger get the better of me. I had had a shit week, and wanted to take it out on someone.