The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[cesare]

What do you know about the "spats" that revol derides, cesare?

Hey, don't seek to draw me into this quarrel. My two posts on this thread (apart from this one) were (a) factual about where revol posts; and (b) a broad statement in reply to fM about my own reaction to phil and revol.

 

[Jonti]

It's not so much a quarrel, I think, as a lack of contextual understanding; revol keeps on making the same point as if we're all dense or something. He doesn't seem to have considered the import of 5t3IIa's remark.

 

[cesare]

On topic, I'm wondering whether any rational proof will sway me from my position of agnosticism. Doubtful, but interesting.

 

[fractionMan]

If you're looking for a rational proof you'll not find it here

 

[cesare]

If you're looking for a rational proof you'll not find it here

I haven't done so far, but maybe the second time round? New posters, new points of view etc.

 

[invisibleplanet]

How does socio-economics relate to theisms/religious organisation?

 

[cesare]

How does socio-economics relate to theisms/religious organisation?

Not sure about theism directly (which is the connection I'd like further explanation on) but in terms of religious organisation - for sure. Organised religion is successful big business.

 

[fractionMan]

I haven't done so far, but maybe the second time round? New posters, new points of view etc.

It'd need to be a different thread. This one is phils vanity project.

 

[cesare]

It'd need to be a different thread. This one is phils vanity project.

It might be a project, dunno about vanity though. Philosophy and theology is what he does, surely? If I was an academic, I'd perhaps do something similar in education/employment. I'm pretty sure that some of my views on employment would be controversial enough to generate a few responses

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

How does socio-economics relate to theisms/religious organisation?

It doesn't. Its all about using language in the same way as slight of hand parlor trick.

 

[cesare]

It doesn't. Its all about using language in the same way as slight of hand parlor trick.

It does though - the organised religion aspect. Can you think of any religious organisation that doesn't make money?

Where we need further clarification is where the basis of organised religion - i.e. the god/gods - directly relate to socio-economics.

 

[revol68]

It's not so much a quarrel, I think, as a lack of contextual understanding; revol keeps on making the same point as if we're all dense or something. He doesn't seem to have considered the import of 5t3IIa's remark.

The import of which remark from STELLA (fuck that numbers shit for a game of darts btw), I'm guessing you are referring to the one where STELLA alludes to the fact that there is something in their spat with Dwyer that goes beyond internet handbags, hinting towards something a bit more sinister perhaps? Well I did ask STELLA to at least vageuly fill me in on what these details are but they declined to do so and instead seemed to insist I simply take their word for it, much like Donald Rumsfeld's known unknowns.

 

[revol68]

It doesn't. Its all about using language in the same way as slight of hand parlor trick.

Yeah there is no way that religion is bound up in the way that society is structured, certainly no correlation between early animalistic religions and the hunter gather societies or the development of monotheism with the spread of Empire, laws universalism.

There certainly isn't any connection between the development of Capitalism and protestantism, nor Calvinism and the work ethic.

As much as Dwyer's theism is loony tunes stuff and he can certainly spout some proper bollox he's ten times more intelligent and insightful than your cretinous self.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

It does though - the organised religion aspect. Can you think of any religious organisation that doesn't make money?

Maybe though organized religion, but that's got nothing to do with any rational proof of gods existence.

 

[cesare]

Maybe though organized religion, but that's got nothing to do with any rational proof of gods existence.

Well that's the part we're waiting to find out, surely? Because I suspect that phil will need to convince the unconvinced that to start with, there's a direct correlation between god/gods and money.

 

[revol68]

Well that's the part we're waiting to find out, surely? Because I suspect that phil will need to convinced the unconvinced that to start with, there's a direct correlation between god/gods and money.

His argument is essentially that through our ability for abstract and symbolic thought we are both part of the material world and yet distinct from it, then by juxtaposing this to a reductive strawman materialism he creates a necessary niche for some good old dualism whereby the human spirit/consciousness must come from some divine spark/creator.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Yeah there is no way that religion is bound up in the way that society is structured, certainly no correlation between early animalistic religions and the hunter gather societies or the development of monotheism with the spread of Empire, laws universalism.

There certainly isn't any connection between the development of Capitalism and protestantism, nor Calvinism and the work ethic.

As much as Dwyer's theism is loony tunes stuff and he can certainly spout some proper bollox he's ten times more intelligent and insightful than your cretinous self.

Oh my and the first two paragraphs held so much promise.

I like the way you agree with me, call Phils ideas loony, then say he is a genus and I a cretin. Full marks.

I don't think have even come across you before, what exactly makes me so cretinous?

 

[revol68]

Oh my and the first two paragraphs held so much promise.

I like the way you agree with me, call Phils ideas loony, then say he is a genus and I a cretin. Full marks.

I don't think have even come across you before, what exactly makes me so cretinous?

You claimed there is no connection between religion and socio economics, I simply pointed out you are talking shite.

I did not call Dwyer a genius, that's an absurd suggestion, he is however quite an intelligent poster who whilst often holding daft notions at least has the balls to stand behind them and argue them out, he is also capable of making some interesting points and connecting common threads in different lines of thought/arguments.

 

[Jonti]

Oh, my!

 

[revol68]

Where we need further clarification is where the basis of organised religion - i.e. the god/gods - directly relate to socio-economics.

Well that's simple, alienation and commodity fetishism.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

You claimed there is no connection between religion and socio economics, I simply pointed out you are talking shite..

Not religion, rational proof of god existence. To be fair, looking back I didn't make that at all clear (I assumed we were talking about the thread theme).

Not sure that's enough to warrant me being a cretin.

 

[Jonti]

His argument is essentially that through our ability for abstract and symbolic thought we are both part of the material world and yet distinct from it, then by juxtaposing this to a reductive strawman materialism he creates a necessary niche for some good old dualism whereby the human spirit/consciousness must come from some divine spark/creator.

This impresses you?

What, then?

 

[fractionMan]

I'm really puzzled at why revol is picking up the where phils ad hominem attacks left off.

Completely unwarranted imo.

 

[revol68]

Not religion, rational proof of god existence. To be fair, looking back I didn't make that at all clear (I assumed we were talking about the thread theme).

Not sure that's enough to warrant me being a cretin.

You really, really didn't make that clear.

You aren't going to get me to argue that exchange value provides rational proof of god's existence, I'm a devout atheist, however there is a connection between exchange value and theism, in that the products of human labour come to stand above human society like supernatural entities.

Dwyer of course is going to attempt a rather daft albeit structurally interesting reversal of this commonality between Feuerbach's critique of religion and Marx'/Lukacs critique of commodity fetishism.

Like I said utter tosh from Dwyer but nonetheless quite interesting tosh in that it touches upon many interconnected arguments.

 

[revol68]

This impresses you?

What, then?

of course it doesn't impress me, but it's atleast a line of argument internally consistent to itself, which is more than can be said for the shit most people post on urban, and he atleast stands by his arguments and doesn't hide behind inane liberalism nor play the poor bullied victim.

 

[Jonti]

this is your ethical stance then, your justification for the shouty defense of trolls rights you've mustered?

fantastic stuff!

 

[revol68]

this is your ethical stance then, your justification for the shouty defense of trolls rights you've mustered?

fantastic stuff!

Come on Dwyer is many things but to reduce him to a troll is just bullshit, unless of course we simply define a troll as someone who gets many peoples backs up.

I'd also contend that the disingenuous use of the report post function as simply a means of trying to get someone banned over a petty online spat is much more troll like behaviour.

 

[cesare]

His argument is essentially that through our ability for abstract and symbolic thought we are both part of the material world and yet distinct from it, then by juxtaposing this to a reductive strawman materialism he creates a necessary niche for some good old dualism whereby the human spirit/consciousness must come from some divine spark/creator.

Ah yeah, I think I can see where he's going with it. But from a personal point of view, I'd like to see at which (if any) specific point in his rationale I think/say 'not necessarily, that may or may not be the case' -> agnosticism.

 

[revol68]

Ah yeah, I think I can see where he's going with it. But from a personal point of view, I'd like to see at which (if any) specific point in his rationale I think/say 'not necessarily, that may or may not be the case' -> agnosticism.

The point is his one dimensional reductive understanding of materialism.

 

[cesare]

The point is his one dimensional reductive understanding of materialism.

Yeah, quite possibly, as I say he hasn't convinced me so far. But I'd like to see how his rationale develops and at what point I depart from it and why, iyswim.