My position is that philosophy concerns intelligible-explicable concepts and "god of religion" is neither an intelligible nor explicable concept. — 180 Proof

us unposh folk so maybe — Changeling

Amor fati. — 180 Proof

Theology, I admit, belongs to classical metaphysics; but the "god of the philosophers" is not worshipped or what religious / mystical seekers seek. — 180 Proof

It's my first language. Yours? — 180 Proof

No. Religious faith [in god(s)] is the focus. "God" is the focus of theology. — 180 Proof

Make the argument, señor. — 180 Proof

Is there? Can you point to objective epistemology that can fuel a philosophical discussion about god or the supernatural in general? — Nickolasgaspar

Its just reasoning reflecting on facts :grin:
8hReplyOptions — Nickolasgaspar

I was asking you that since you seemed to suggest the discussion was missing the mark — Paine

So, more of a silence? Talking about logos won't help? — Paine

bleak SOF — Wayfarer

Non sequitur. i agree with Nickolasgaspar and disagree with your reply to him. — 180 Proof

This is confused, you've got it backwards, mon ami. :smirk: — 180 Proof

"There's a place for" unintelligibility-inexplicability (i.e. "divine mysteries") "in phlosophy" (i.e. the love – pursuit – of 'masterful intellection-explication')? — 180 Proof

I guess this explains why you are disengaged from the various attempts made in this discussion to distinguish between different possible meanings. But I don't understand what you mean by likening it to a "reminder."

I feel like I am standing at the boundary of a private language. — Paine

Possibility needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. The default position(Null hypothesis) is to reject the possibility of a claim until facts can falsify our initial rejection. An example I used in the past was that of Alchemy. Alchemists spent time and resources to turn lead in to gold when our current knowledge informs us that the chemical transmutation of elements impossible. So there is a price to pay when someone thinks that there is nothing to lose when accepting a "deepity". — Nickolasgaspar

My take on that would be that "the philosopher shouldn't seek God until he has access to objective epistemology pointing to the existence and ontology of God(s). — Nickolasgaspar

That they aren't in the head. — bongo fury

haha that's as good an action as any I guess. *shrug* — Benj96

It's just glorified predictive text. — Banno