I have a stupid but genuine question...

I have a stupid but genuine question. How can you be a philosopher and still think the jewish/christian/muslim god exists?

We all believe in things that can't be proven to exist, user.

Does philosophers make money today

no they eat people

No, because that would involve subordinating the truth to faith in hebrew mythology, which is the greatest error an intelligent person can commit.

>the jewish/christian/muslim god

1. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD.

2. JEWS —AND JUDEOCHRISTIANS— WORSHIP YHWH/SATAN, NOT GOD.

3. CHRISTIANS, AND MOHAMMEDANS/MUSLIMS, WORSHIP GOD.

4. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: NO; A PERSON CANNOT BE A PHILOSOPHER WITH NO BELIEF IN GOD.

Everything that is in motion is moved by something else. This cannot go on forever because if it did there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover as well. This is because second movers don't move except when moved by a first mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. So a first mover which is itself unmoved by anything else is necessary to explain motion.

Change or "motion" is the actualization of potential. To be moved by anything else is the actualization of potential so the first mover is necessarily pure actual. Pure actual must be omnipotent because to not be able to do something would be unrealized potential. Pure actual couldn't pop in or out of existence because that would imply unrealized potential, so pure actual must be eternal. Pure actual must be non-physical because physical beings or substances can change forms or locations, both of which are unrealized potential. An imperfection of any kind would be an unrealized potential, so pure actual must be perfect. There can only be one pure actual because the only way to tell the difference between two purely actual things is if one of them had something the other didn't. Pure actuality can't lack anything. Pure actual must be omnipotent, eternal, non-physical, and perfect. It's starting to sound like the Christian God isn't it?

ADDENDUM: I MISREAD YOUR QUESTION AS "CAN YOU?", THEREFORE, DISREGARD POINT NUMBER FOUR.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: PHILOSOPHY NECESSITATES BELIEF IN GOD; YOUR QUESTION IS SPURIOUS, SINCE IT DERIVES FROM A PRIORI THESIS OF PHILOSOPHY BEING POSSIBLE WITH NO BELIEF IN GOD.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Something you seem to lack when making this post.

>YHVH isn't the Christian God.
Am I having a stroke?

Yeah, kinda. But it gives me another question? Why the Bible? I understand the New Testament that it's like the teachings of Buddha but with Jesus instead... but The Old One, what's it purpose?

NO, YOU ARE MERELY CRIPPLED IN MIND, AND IN SPIRIT.

I don't think there's any philosophical argument that can show Christianity is true as opposed to any other monotheistic religion because its the wrong tool for the job. Philosophy can only take you so far in deciding which religion is the truth. Christianity has one thing going for it that other religions don't, and that's historical evidence and testimony. Jesus being who he said he was provides the best explanation for a number of events, including the tomb being empty on Easter morning, the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the apostles and approximately 500 other people, the appearance to the early Church's fiercest adversary, Saul of Tarsus, which transformed him into her most zealous apostle, just to name a few examples.

Subjective or personal experience shouldn't be wholly dismissed even though it's not very persuasive in argument. I'm not entirely sure how I made the leap from philosophical theism to Christianity but I spent a year or so studying the bible and immersing myself in Catholic literature and at some point I just started calling myself Christian. I've always been partial to Aristotelian teleology and natural law so so a lot of the Catholic doctrines rang true to me.

"This cosmos has not been built by a god or man, it is was and will ever be an everlasting fire in measures enlighted in measures stopped."
You can´t be a philosopher if you believe in god, even de Espinoza wasn´t a faithful guy, because he called god a substance and everything is part of that substance.

Ask yourself first about the existence of a god. Any god. If you know the answer then you know far more than me. If you don't go ask someone else. If they know listen. Perhaps you may begin to learn something of a god. Any god. Now take the thought that no one knows about the nature of a god truely. If that is the case then what use is there in arguing beyond existence? You believe or you don't. I like to because it's colorful. My gods are there. As to their nature? I am but man and I can't begin to describe something beyond human. Now take what you might know about a god, any god, and realize how much it teaches about humanity. The nature of a God is man yet God is beyond humanity. It is very philosophical, at least to me, because it provokes thought. I am but man and yet I would describe a diety.

If you spent a year reading about Christianity then you ought to know that Jesus actually existing is highly unlikely.

But user, it was a parable, whatever it was.

>evidence

oh

You scare me...

I'm sure you could cite many respected historians with that position.

I think the dude is legitimately mental

Get a grip