S
Shakuhachi
Guest
But that is not the same as human reasoning which it limited and flawed.
We can know God through love better than through rational cogitation.
Last edited:
- Status
We can know God through love better than through rational cogitation.
M
Mmarco
Guest
I totally disagree. The god of greek philophers is not the true God, but only an empty concept, and God is not a concept. God is in essence is inconceivable and beyond the capacities of our mind and reason. We can know the only true God through Christ because in Christ, God had made Himself knowledgeable. Christ has reveaed who God is and we can know Him by meeting Him in prayer.Mmarco:
The “God of the philosphers” is God. The greeks had a better understanding of the reality of God and transcendent being than the hebrews.
By the way, greek philosophers didn’t understand pratically nothing about nature and their wrong ideas have prevented any scientific progress for more than 2000 years.
Il was Galileo’s rebellion against their philosophic view of nature that allows modern science to begin. As a physicist, I am really surprised that today there are still people interested in greek philosophy; personally, I consider greek philosophy totally useless.
P
Platonist
Guest
I can’t believe a physicist would fail to understand that the ptolemaic model is ultimately as sound as the Copernican, since the motion of bodies is entirely relative. You don’t even know what science is, much less philosophy. “Physicists” from newton on have always been useful idiots. I guess it would be easy for a modern physicist to have blind faith though.
Last edited:
M
Mmarco
Guest
Of course, our view of the universe is exactly the same as the ptolemaic model with itscelestial spheres and the same as the aristotelian explanation of gravity with all bodies moving toward their natural place.
You are being ridiculous.
P
Platonist
Guest
You can’t be a catholic and deny the telos of creation. Also, do you still believe in the newtonian conception of gravity and substance? Do you still believe in atomism? Give me a break.
P
Platonist
Guest
. . . . Newton’s gravity and inertia was just a Whig reconceptualizing of Empedocles’ forces of “love and strife”, which he learned about from his decades long obsession with alchemy. The obsolete physics you champion was just a return to the presocratics.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
“Knowing God” and “knowing of God” are two distinct notions, and hardly the same thing. I think I’d respond that you cannot equate the two in the way you’re attempting to do.
So, I reject your assertion on the basis of an invalid presumption.
P
Platonist
Guest
I dont follow, whats the implication here?
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Faith is a virtue because it requires trust in God which is a good thing. Reason should help inform our faith.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I think, if you think that, you’ve failed at both.
M
Major
Guest
Don’t worry, I am one of them and I know we shouldn’t be trusted
Obviously it is different in the sense that one truth in principle you can get by yourself and the other cannot be reached. However:
- Both are truths, and what is important is to know the truth, the way you are approaching it is not so important.
- In case of taking some truths on the authority of other humans, we need to see, at least in principle, that the reasoning can be made by man because we cannot trust fellow men unconditionally and this is one of the “safety checks”. However if the God gives us some truths, as long as we know it is from him, we can be sure that he is neither deceived nor deceiving us.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Just a general observation, and not directed at anyone in particular:
Have you ever noticed around here that, when an article of faith that someone doesn’t believe in is mentioned, it’s denigrated as “blind faith”, but when it’s something that the person himself accepts, it’s never “blind faith”?
Hmm…
- Status