Who is the most unfathomable genius of all time?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Great thread

I do not claim this thread represents “the end of the journey needed to discover truth”, but rather that I am getting close.

and then you quote Socrates/Plato....

“I know one thing; that I know nothing”

You can never come close...there is always a new flower blossoming always...

Death needs genius help to kill spect warrior badly lol

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Trudging trough all the mud, I'd say Madam Curie.

Kim Jong is a pretty smart cookie.

originally posted by: carewemust
Kim Jong is a pretty smart cookie.

That is repeating what the U.S. President is saying. Does anyone really know?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: carewemust
Kim Jong is a pretty smart cookie.

That is repeating what the U.S. President is saying. Does anyone really know?

Since the U.S. President gets a daily intelligence briefing on the world leaders, he knows more than me.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: carewemust
Kim Jong is a pretty smart cookie.

That is repeating what the U.S. President is saying. Does anyone really know?

Since the U.S. President gets a daily intelligence briefing on the world leaders, he knows more than me.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

The best intelligence briefing would be to meet with Kimmy and get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Agreed. But...technically, she had the advantage of some celebrity because of her last name and the whole OJ thing, and to say she parlayed her celebrity into a multi-million dollar business without any talent would be stretching it. Either she has some talent, or she's been very fortunate to have some "talented" people helping her make decisions. Either way, she's the one enjoying the good life and we're here talking about her, so more power to her. But she is freaking annoying as hell. Also HOT as hell.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
2) “I know one thing; that I know nothing”

That statement is self-contradictory.

Synonyms for self-contradictory:

absurd
false
incorrect
irrational
unreasonable
unscientific

fallacious
invalid
mad
meaningless
unsound
wacky

Synonyms for "unreliable":

false
unsound
untrustworthy
not trustworthy, not true

delusive
erronuous
untrue

Meaning: this source is not trustworthy; and your judgement is rather poor, cause it's pretty obvious that it's self-contradictory to conflate "nothing" with "one thing" (what is it? Does the person who says that knows nothing or -only- "one thing"? Can't be both. The reality/truth is that it's neither, more often then not they know they're full of it and that they're talking nonsense at the very least; that's already 2 things). You're not the only one trying to conflate "nothing" with "something (very very simple)" or "something mysterious", quoting Dawkins for example.
Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

One thing is for sure...these are not 'the most unfathomable geniuses of all time'. They are very efficient propagandizers and marketeers (sellers) of themselves as geniuses though.

It's just more promotion of general agnosticism + (encouragement to remain wallowing in) ignorance (regarding many subjects; but of course we all know what this is about and which facts/realities people who love these kind of nonsensical/absurd phrases really want to deny and ignore the evidence for to reach a conclusive conclusion regarding those subjects; either to apply and encourage blind faith regarding their theologies or philosophies/ideas about reality that are devoid of theology, so both for the ones that are inclined towards theism and atheism along with those who prefer agnosticism already, see my commentary in the thread with Pontius Pilate's question in the religion and theology forum: "What is truth?" Or in this forum: "What is knowledge?"). It's also very conducive for philosophical naturalism (and the evolutionary philosophies that come with it that are taken on blind faith as "the most likely scenario" or model) or Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism, Deism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, New age philosophies, etc. The blind faith encouraged by Babylon the Great (often by denying beliefs and "faith" being a factor in this by those who adhere to or believe these philosophies to be at least close to representing the realities).

originally posted by: Cauliflower
And later Plato reinterpreted this to mean that truth is relative and known to the individual through their own filter.

Yep, general agnosticism is what I called it in my previous comment (or it's one of the supporting arguments and philosophies for it; or otherwise connected to it). Still extremely popular today. Especially with politicians and evolutionary philosophers like the Plato+Arsitotle fans (philosophical naturalists + pantheists + deists + Gaia-worshippers, Mother Nature fans, etc.). Plato's philosophies were also involved in the later development of the doctrine of the Trinity that is taught in Christendom and various other religions that had Triads or Triune Gods (Babylon, Egypt, Greece and the Hindu areas, from Persia all the way to what is nowadays called India, philosophies spread fast; it was taught in those areas, not that Plato was involved in what was taught in ancient Babylon of course, it spread from Babylon, that's the source, Babylon the Great loves general agnosticism, ignorance and keeping people ignorant and wallowing in ignorance as if it's a sign of humility, openmindedness and enlightenment to acknowledge or claim that one is ignorant of everything, i.e. knows nothing, not even the one thing one contradictory claims to know before claiming they don't know anything for sure/certain, not even the most basic simple facts/truths/certainties/realities, i.e. very close to denying reality alltogether, as the expression goes, denying inconvenient facts/realities is how I usually describe the behaviour). Others in the past have appealed to it or expressed signs of that way of thinking as well.

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth—especially moral and spiritual truth—is not absolute but relative and ever changing. This, of course, implies that people can determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. (Isaiah 5:20, 21) It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations.

The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32.

Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future—everlasting life.—2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you? Why not ask Jehovah’s Witnesses what “the truth” that Jesus taught is all about? They will be glad to share that truth with you.

In case there's any confusion what they're talking about ("that truth").

What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

...

Short answer: no. But you'll have to click the link for details.
Source (besides the ones already listed in the quotations, cause those are the real sources of course): Trinity: Reasoning

Some more of the links or connections from Plato (Greek philosophy and specific philosophers) - evolutionary philosophies - philosophical naturalism - Trinitarianism > back to Babylon (Babylonian is also referred to as Chaldean depending on the time period and which exact area someone is from):
The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1
It actually gets going in the 2nd part.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Who is the most unfathomable genius of all time?

I think

William James Sidis