Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Rational Proof of God's Existence

Status
Not open for further replies.
fractionMan said:
But what if I don't want a Badger? Or Beans? Does that mean god hates me?

My head hurts, it's all too much for my tiny mind.
Click to expand...
Ah, I think you're referencing Horstaldtz's Bean/Badger Paradox here, am I right?

*strokes beard thoughtfully* Impressive in its day of course, but if you read and properly understand Kant, Marx and Hegel it is quite comprehensively disproved.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
Ah, I think you're referencing Horstaldtz's Bean/Badger Paradox here, am I right?

*strokes beard thoughtfully* Impressive in its day of course, but if you read and properly understand Kant, Marx and Hegel it is quite comprehensively disproved.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you're forgetting the the squirrel/sparrow conundrum - without that any discussion on this point is fruitless
 
phildwyer said:
First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.* The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.
Click to expand...
yr comparing apples and oranges! :(

or, specifically, cattle and sheep. but the point's the same! :mad:

yr not comparing like with like! :mad:
 
The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.
Click to expand...
Can you explain what you mean by value not being a material thing, and if you mean something else then write it out instead of using those stupid asterisks.
 
phildwyer said:
...
"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."

He was not using the words "metaphysical" and "theological" figuratively. First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.* The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb. Is everyone with me so far?
Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses.
Click to expand...
I don't follow.

Perceptible? I don't understand why the "value" has to be "perceptible", the argument is circular- value can only exist if it is perceptible ("being capable of being perceived by the mind or senses"), in the same way as absolutely everything- any concept, by its very existence is "perceptible", this fails to prove its validity- what "value" do your cow and lamb actually have outside the mind of the one evaluating them (who must already possess the idea of value and round and round it goes)?

Why does exchange of goods require the invention of the notion of "value"? In order to do that I think you're imputing the act of exchange with motives which are not necessarily present. The act of exchanging one thing for another requires no sense of value- if I have a pile of pebbles and I move them around into a different configuration they have been exchanged, spatially. No concept of "value" was necessary unless I did this for a specific end. Inherent in each pebble are some attributes which enable them to be piled up as I please, but this is very far from them having any "value" in the sense of a property that is only acquired when they are exchanged.

And at the risk of repeating myself, and going round in circles of my own- the concept of "value" in the context of exchange goods not only requires the assumption of a purpose but also presupposes the notion of possession which is intimately tied with value- how can something be possessed in the absence of "value"?
...
Are you just attempting some rhetorical sleight of hand? Why does Marx have to come into it? You're going to have to really start from first principles if you want to be credible.

p.s. your arrogance is absolutely mind-blowing- you honestly believe you can prove the existence of god? I'd just like to ask now, how will we know when you're done? Will we all suddenly "believe"? Will light shine from our screens and bathe us in His Love? Surely the great luminaries which you name in your original post would have succeeded if it were possible?
This is the most exciting thread I've seen for a while. But please keep up the momentum or I may get distracted by something shiny and forget the magnitude of what you're doing for humankind.
 
shiny_thing.jpg


There goes salvation for you!
 
this is not a circle jerk,

it's more like whenc homer tried to jump the canyon on bart's skateboard. We're simply here to record the event for posterity.
 
phildwyer said:
Faith is what people who don't have the time or inclination to work through the rational proof must rely on. The rational proof is very complicated, and most people simply can't be bothered to follow it. In fact, I'm not altogether sure that *I* can be bothered, but I'll try to stick with it. I reckon I'll limit myself to one post a day on this thread though, or it will take over my entire life. So any objectors to what I've said so far have *one* day to raise their hands. No going back later on.
Click to expand...
I'm looking forward to this one. Good work phil :)
 
phildwyer said:
<snip> The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange. Yes, exchange. The exchange, say, of a cow for a lamb. This will eventually produce the commodity which, of which Karl Marx says:

"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."

He was not using the words "metaphysical" and "theological" figuratively. First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.* The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb. Is everyone with me so far?
Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses.
Click to expand...
With you so far phil, but watching like a hawk for signs that this value you're talking about is about to be treated as either an object held before the minds eye or as some sort of thing with analogous properties to material objects.
 
Hmm, if the argument is going to hold then it will surely entail that SwapShop is the ultimate church and that Noel Edmunds is the pope.

My anticipatory no-hee-hee is that you're dressing up the ontological argument in Marx's false beard and itinerant's overcoat when we'd be better off putting it in Derrida's toutou and hobnail boots.
 
i can't be alone in wondering why phildwyer has chosen u75 to air this extraordinary rational proof of the existence of god, something i've long understood had eluded the greatest minds in philosophy.

surely if he freally has cracked it, and this isn't some premature announcement akin to the story some years ago about warm fusion, he should be looking to coin it in rather than post it all up for free on a not-for-profit brixton-based message board.
 
perplexis said:
p.s. your arrogance is absolutely mind-blowing- you honestly believe you can prove the existence of god? I'd just like to ask now, how will we know when you're done? Will we all suddenly "believe"? Will light shine from our screens and bathe us in His Love? Surely the great luminaries which you name in your original post would have succeeded if it were possible?
Click to expand...

I predict that this thread will eventually end with Phil's proclaimation of his final proof, which if questioned will be met with "well it's obviously beyond your capability of understanding".
 
Pickman's model said:
i can't be alone in wondering why phildwyer has chosen u75 to air this extraordinary rational proof of the existence of god, something i've long understood had eluded the greatest minds in philosophy.

surely if he freally has cracked it, and this isn't some premature announcement akin to the story some years ago about warm fusion, he should be looking to coin it in rather than post it all up for free on a not-for-profit brixton-based message board.
Click to expand...

:D :D :D
 
Bernie Gunther said:
With you so far phil, but watching like a hawk for signs that this value you're talking about is about to be treated as either an object held before the minds eye or as some sort of thing with analogous properties to material objects.
Click to expand...

I'm with you here Bernie. It would be nice if this thread didn't just descend into abuse and flaming because that wouldn't actually defeat Phil's phaluses.

The concept of value is a pretty fundamental one. It presents a problem for syntacticians because the use of certain verbs (buy, sell, swap) etc. necessitates a third object to the verb which isn't easily explained structurally (Chomskian syntacticians have enough problems trying to explain ditransitives convinicingly). Given your obsession with subjects and objects (which I've never quite understood) I'm prepared to let you run with this one Phil and I'm always open to logical argument. But I warn you, small steps and I ain't reading Kant for no-one.
 
apart from the central tendentious assumption about "exchange" being the definitive characterstic of human societies, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt thus far...

MaoMao said:
that wouldn't actually defeat Phil's phaluses
Click to expand...
[Edit - I had no idea, Phil, you had more than one Phallus - my, you must be a gifted chap :eek: ]
 
articul8 said:
apart from the central tendentious assumption about "exchange" being the definitive characterstic of human societies, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt thus far...
Click to expand...
No, you can't just 'give' him that one - it has to be attacked as he's building a case on it. Apparently.
 
Dubversion said:
surely proof, or even a rational demonstration, is a denial of faith, and without faith your God is nothing?


edited to add: and i look forward to being utterly convinced. bring it on..
Click to expand...
Kirkegaard would have agreed with you on that one.
 
butchersapron said:
No, you can't just 'give' him that one - it has to be attacked as he's building a case on it. Apparently.
Click to expand...
Ah, Ok. I see what you mean. Now you mention it, that isn't entirely obvious at first sight.
 
I'm certainly not giving him the "value is perceptible in the body of the item exchanged for" thing. It sounds too much like intrinsic value and if it isn't he should explain it.

I'm also fairly happy taking the piss, though I imagine that will die down a bit.
 
butchersapron said:
No, you can't just 'give' him that one - it has to be attacked as he's building a case on it. Apparently.
Click to expand...

yes, but as soon as he starts to give any kind of indication of where "value" is produced (or otherwise), he'll give himself away. Hence, I'll wait for him to go astray.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gromit
God wanted Trump to be president
Replies
22
Views
1K
petee
petee
Ming
The Random Nature of Existence and How To Emotionally Deal With It.
Replies
14
Views
909
Ming
Ming
W
If god exists, would you worship him?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
279
Views
13K
mojo pixy
mojo pixy
Gromit
If God exists, how would you worship him?
2 3
Replies
77
Views
4K
articul8
articul8
jcherish
If God created everything, who created God ?
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
krink
krink
Back
Top Bottom