And who exactly proffessed a belief in the devil around here?
I must have missed that post…
Can there be such a thing as a necessary unknowable, eg that a law of physics remains a “law” time eternity, past and present, for all space, even in a black hole? Or that the earth will be hit by a hitherto undetected asteriod tomorrow? Or notions of probability remains always necessary, as we can never know enough to be deterministic, eg the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
If so, we can invoke god, as a shorthand, to explain for these fundamental but relevant unknowables, but that is really doing the concept of god injustice, for it is simply another name for human ignorance, and it would be much better, for the sake of knowledge, precision in language, and unambiguity in meaning, to call it as such.
Rather I think a greater necessity and a nobler reason for God is why we discuss such questions at all? What and why is it that only man, amongst all species on earth, “learns and advance”, created the sciences and philosophies and religions, make arts and war, murder and love all at the same time, etc. What is it in our biology and the less than 1% difference in our genes compared to chimps make us to be so different from anything else?
It is only when we have a mirror do we see ourselves and can ask relevant and practical questions about ourselves.
You know, it’s interesting. Arguing about religion, if the right objections were made against me, i would have to answer in the language of modern Theology. (Rudolph Otto’s the Idea of the Holy, et al) I wonder if that’s why they developed it – i.e. to counter modern atheism? I had never seen it’s use before. 
(I mean differing the numenon and phenomenon of God, for example.)
You know, you’re right. The very fact that we have brains we do not fully understand, as well as the fact we are capable of learning and advancing on a greater scale than other animals, is undeniable proof of an all powerful deity that willed it so.
Thanks for straightening me out.
As Henry Calderwood wrote:
“Rational homage offered to the Deity is the highest exercise of mind. In such exercise, intellect is occupied with the highest conceptions which it can reach, and our sensibility proves competent for companionship with thought, as it goes forth on its most exalted range.”
I can’t argue with that!
I can.
First, ‘rational homage to a deity’ is an oxymoron. To ‘believe’ in deities is to forgo ration and reason in favor of ‘faith’
Faith and rational thinking are not compatible.
Second, doing so is not only not the ‘highest excersise of mind’, but it is a complete release of all things intellectual. It is intellectual surender.
<<the changes to philosophy that need to be made in order to accomodate the absence of the concept of God are simply an undying urge for knowledge and a willingness to admit and state ‘I don’t know’. In fact, these changes need to be made in all facets of life. That’s the short answer. >>
Since that’s the short answer, may i assume it is the most important part of your answer? These posts are getting a little long. You asked my take, did you mean on your whole post?
Anyway, what a curious thing to say, that with a concept of God everything is solved. An agent cause here and a final cause there and you think the ancients knew everything! But it does give one something to work from. And it is good to know some things, instead of saying “i don’t know” possibly about essential aspects of the science. But i guess i haven’t argued that to your satisfaction yet.
Also, i’m coming to realise i have another possible snafu with my argument. By a theological philosophy, i tend to think of Scholasticism (peleo- or neo-). Many of it’s conclusions point to God, but it might not be the only historical trend that does.
Does that help you understand the rest of my arguments?
Dr.Satanical
Out of all possible understandings of the phrase, ‘Rational homage offered to the Deity…’ you seem to have wilfully preferred to narrow things down to fit with your own preconceived prejudices!
Your trivial remarks, for that is all they amount to, are really of no interest to me, and contribute nothing to the discussion: I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond!
I never mentioned the words, ‘believe,’ or, ‘faith.’ You inferred them incorrectly and irrelevantly and further chose to introduce them into the debate. I would suggest, respectfully, that the onus is on you to deal with your diversionary, (red herring,) inclinations, and correct them before you begin to attempt to correct me!
If you are unable or unwilling to exercise your intellect with conceptions of Deity or if the matter is of no interest to you, fine, no problem, that is surely your business. But to then dogmatically assert the matter to be what you call, ‘intellectual surrender,’ is to be what I call intellectually disingenuous!
Your rantings are some times amusing, but know I and probably nobody else with even a loose grasp on reality take you seriously.
Now, with that being said. Explain to me how you can believe i a deity without faith. Red herring indeed. When you are unable to do this, (as is inevitable) proceed to explain how you can rationalize ‘paying homage’ to said irational belief. Using actual logic and reason. And none of your usual trying to use logic to disprove logic bullshit either.
I add nothing to the discussion? It seems reality bothers you. Would you feel I was contributing if I spewed post after post of unfounded irational rhetoric like you do?
Learn how to think before you step to me kid.
Dr.Satanical
You too, know this well, (and learn it by heart,) namely, that whether or no you, (or anyone else for that matter,) take me seriously is none of my proper concern. There, your first lesson in philosophy!
Understand this, slave, when you have dealings with me you are dealing with your master and your intellectual superior, so learn to respect yourself by honouring our unwritten contract.
Before you reply, (hopefully, you will not waste my valuable time further,) go and get some lessons in how to communicate in the English language. Your posts leave much to be desired.
And kindly stop being so foolishly rebellious for the sake of it!
Courage!
P.
The thing that makes me LOL the loudest, is that you probably believe that.
Wait, no…this does.
I supose it only makes sense that to you logical thinking and getting straight to the point would seem a little wacky 
Don’t forget to drink the Koolaide…the spaceship is coming!
It occurs to me that i am doing this the wrong way. Instead of just trying to explain how belief in God affects philosophy, i should also ask how an athiest’s philosophy is constructed.
So, if you are an athiest, how do you support your philosophy of: political theory, epistemology, natural sciences, and ethics?
Vale bene.
Dr.Satanical
D’you wanna call it quits and shake hands or d’you wanna spar a few more rounds?
It’s up to you.