The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[ViolentPanda]

Suck my wriggly blue one.

You have a pet smurf?

 

[ViolentPanda]

WTF?

I've been a professor too then.

Good afternoon, Emeritus Professor Suplex!!

 

[William of Walworth]

Belated one off contribution ...

You aren't going to get me to argue that exchange value provides rational proof of god's existence.

I have a feeling there is only one person here that thinks there is any connection at all. I'm not even sure he believes it, I think he just wants to play what he thinks is a clever game of words. His frustration/irritation probably stems from the fact he has not managed to convince one person to jump his first hurdle.

I have only seen him spout misinformed/badly reasoned nonsense, vile bullish attacks and even lies. An interesting diversion perhaps, but an intellectual colossus he is not.

For what very little it's worth I agree with ATOMIC here. I've been observing this thread on and off for absolutely ages, whilst not posting, and to me the whole thing does look predominantly like dwyer's vanity project (as somebody else has already said), an exercise in gamesmanship for him.

Plenty of room for proper debate about whether or not God's existence can ever be rationally proven, not even saying there's been none of that debate in this thread along the way.

But I remain very unconvinced that such a debate is dwyer's prime purpose.

I do not believe in God, and I do not believe God's existence can ever be proven either. If any real proof manifests itself through irrefutable evidence, proper proof sufficient to convince those who in the absence so far of any evidence, are as good as sure -- for day to day purposes! -- that God doesn't exist, as well as convince those more ambivalent or sympathetic, then no doubt I'd have to rethink.

But dwyer's cats cradles of semantic wordplay don't do it for me rational proof wise ... their prime purpose looks like trying to trap other posters into contradicting themselves, as in the games that dominate so much of this thread.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Plenty of room for proper debate about whether or not God's existence can ever be rationally proven, not even saying there's been none of that debate in this thread along the way.

But I remain very unconvinced that such a debate is dwyer's prime purpose.

If Dwyer didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.

 

[bhamgeezer]

It's something like that. My understanding is that he's saying that witchcraft, magic etc has historically been about manipulation of the world through symbols and that money is a symbolic representation of alienated labour and has taken on a life of it's own, which manipulates human behaviour and can be thought of as "the devil". Interesting, but fairly bonkers IMO. I have seen a similar argument in the Disinfo "Book of Lies" guide to magic and the occult. Something about corporate symbols and logos being akin to magic sygils. Entertaining nonsense.

This idea is always latched on to by troof seekers It is true of course historically occultism was often considered the capacity to influence the will much more than the abilty fire lightening out your arse. Knowing this it is clear why attention starved "orginal sin" beguiling young women were the most commonly accused of witchcraft. Money also having a profound influence on the will of an individual clearly gained it an association with occultism as well. Their was the historical christian attitude towards usury for example, which ofc lead to the stereotype of the jewish money lender. Paper money was consider to be immoral for a time as well as the idea that something that had no physical value could be used as currency was too foreign and abstract for the people of the time. Additionally the fact that paper money needs requires a complex print to deter forgery makes it look slightly occultic.

However I don't really see the relevance of this because I think its clear as day to anyone living presently that influencing peoples motivations, will, behaviour or whatever you want to call is not magic or inherently evil and at best this information illustrates how a misguided understanding can lead to irrational beliefs.

 

[fractionMan]

You have a pet smurf?

Does it spunk in polka dots, that's what I want to know.

 

[Jessiedog]

For what very little it's worth I agree with ATOMIC here. I've been observing this thread on and off for absolutely ages, whilst not posting, and to me the whole thing does look predominantly like dwyer's vanity project (as somebody else has already said), an exercise in gamesmanship for him.

Plenty of room for proper debate about whether or not God's existence can ever be rationally proven, not even saying there's been none of that debate in this thread along the way.

But I remain very unconvinced that such a debate is dwyer's prime purpose.

I do not believe in God, and I do not believe God's existence can ever be proven either. If any real proof manifests itself through irrefutable evidence, proper proof sufficient to convince those who in the absence so far of any evidence, are as good as sure -- for day to day purposes! -- that God doesn't exist, as well as convince those more ambivalent or sympathetic, then no doubt I'd have to rethink.

But dwyer's cats cradles of semantic wordplay don't do it for me rational proof wise ... their prime purpose looks like trying to trap other posters into contradicting themselves, as in the games that dominate so much of this thread.

Yup.

It's a troll.

And obviously a very good one.



And, as we already know, most likely a professional one too - in the sense of gathering data/ideas/material for the purpose of making money/keeping a job - through publication of some sort of book/paper/article/lecture/hypothesis/whatever.

Most of the time, this kind of journalistic "exploitation" of Urban is frowned upon, but as revol68 points out, phil is an entertaining poster and this allows him much latitude.

Nevertheless, the "multiple logins" mantra has been drummed into us for years by mod after mod after mod - and perma-bans, without exception, dished out upon discovery (at least when the mods have chosen to let us know this has occurred).

Banned posters trying to sneak back in will be re-banned immediately and permanently.

Maybe phil could be unbanned after his two week hiatus on condition that he tithes 10% of his salary and any book (or other money making) deals to the server fund?

Otherwise, I fear, the rules are clear and we will be permanently deprived of such engaging dialogue.

Something must be done!




Woof

 

[jannerboyuk]

It's something like that. My understanding is that he's saying that witchcraft, magic etc has historically been about manipulation of the world through symbols and that money is a symbolic representation of alienated labour and has taken on a life of it's own, which manipulates human behaviour and can be thought of as "the devil". Interesting, but fairly bonkers IMO. I have seen a similar argument in the Disinfo "Book of Lies" guide to magic and the occult. Something about corporate symbols and logos being akin to magic sygils. Entertaining nonsense.

alan moore bangs on about that stuff in his mindscape of alan moore doc. as you say entertaining nonsense

 

[purplex]

IMO god exists in peoples minds.
Whether that is real or not depends whether you believe. You clearly have to hand yourself over to believing god really exists, its a leap of faith and trust.
I see belief in god as equivalent to computer software. Software doesn't physically exist, you can't touch it, you can't see it, it's not a physical thing its just 1s and 0s being passed around electronics, if you turn off the device running the software, the software disappears and no longer exists, its transient, in the same vein, belief in god is a set of impulses running around your brain. If belief in god is a computer program then religion is the equivalent a virus. I dont believe in God myself, but I have no problem with people that do, they are simply infected.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

IMO god exists in peoples minds.
Whether that is real or not depends whether you believe. You clearly have to hand yourself over to believing god really exists, its a leap of faith and trust.
I see belief in god as equivalent to computer software. Software doesn't physically exist, you can't touch it, you can't see it, it's not a physical thing its just 1s and 0s being passed around electronics, if you turn off the device running the software, the software disappears and no longer exists, its transient, in the same vein, belief in god is a set of impulses running around your brain. If belief in god is a computer program then religion is the equivalent a virus. I dont believe in God myself, but I have no problem with people that do, they are simply infected.

Isn't that just called thinking.

 

[Drone Module]

seems to me that the debate on god's reality or unreality could well do with moving backwards, down to the terms of what people consider the real to consist of.

even if God does not exist in its own right, it certainly exists as an object of speculation and argument and has affected billions of lives throughout human history... to me that makes God real enough, this having injected massive (more often than not violent) difference into the world. if God doesn't have any positive, autonomous existence beyond this that doesn't mean it is not real, it just means its reality takes the form of absolute absence.

the analogy to software is an interesting one because there we have an immaterial assemblage of routines, patterns and so on which clearly exist despite having no tangible, phenomenological reality outside of the interface of the screen. perhaps this is how god exists too...but with the situation reversed so that the screen itself conjures the software.

 

[Pickman's model]

now phil's back, perhaps he could make up for lost time and crack on with his so-called proof of god.

 

[phildwyer]

now phil's back, perhaps he could make up for lost time and crack on with his so-called proof of god.

It is indeed a matter for profound regret that we were so sharply interrupted just as we were starting to make significant progress. Worse yet, I am off to Japan in a couple of days, and consequently may not be able to advance my proof as quickly as I would have wished.

Still, the fact is that I had no business suggesting that Atomic Suplex’s mother is nothing but a two-bit hooker. Of course I don’t really believe it anyway. In fact, to judge by Atomic’s furious outrage at the suggestion, I’m pretty sure she is a virgin.

And we all know what that means. Most probably the angel Gabriel appeared to the young Mrs. Suplex and pronounced: “Lo, though thou art yet a virgin thou shalt bear a son, and thou shalt call his name ‘Atomic.’”

So that would make Atomic Suplex nothing less than the Son of God Himself. And if God has a Son, then obviously God must exist.

A less intellectually scrupulous man than myself would declare victory at this stage and announce that God’s existence has been proven. I cannot do so however, mainly because I cannot quite believe that Atomic Suplex himself exists.

So we must press on. I shall return in due course to respond to the objections to the initial stage of my proof that have been raised in my absence.

 

[newme]

so no, just more obfuscation and delay.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is indeed a matter for profound regret that we were so sharply interrupted just as we were starting to make significant progress. Worse yet, I am off to Japan in a couple of days, and consequently may not be able to advance my proof as quickly as I would have wished.

Still, the fact is that I had no business suggesting that Atomic Suplex’s mother is nothing but a two-bit hooker. Of course I don’t really believe it anyway. In fact, to judge by Atomic’s furious outrage at the suggestion, I’m pretty sure she is a virgin.

And we all know what that means. Most probably the angel Gabriel appeared to the young Mrs. Suplex and pronounced: “Lo, though thou art yet a virgin thou shalt bear a son, and thou shalt call his name ‘Atomic.’”

So that would make Atomic Suplex nothing less than the Son of God Himself. And if God has a Son, then obviously God must exist.

A less intellectually scrupulous man than myself would declare victory at this stage and announce that God’s existence has been proven. I cannot do so however, mainly because I cannot quite believe that Atomic Suplex himself exists.

So we must press on. I shall return in due course to respond to the objections to the initial stage of my proof that have been raised in my absence.

doesn't sound to me like you're sorry at all.

 

[5t3IIa]

Me neither! Me neither!

 

[laptop]

doesn't sound to me like you're sorry at all.

If this were a dafamation case, that "apology" would double the damages.

dwyer loses.

 

[editor]

Still, the fact is that I had no business suggesting that Atomic Suplex’s mother is nothing but a two-bit hooker. Of course I don’t really believe it anyway. In fact, to judge by Atomic’s furious outrage at the suggestion, I’m pretty sure she is a virgin.

I strongly recommend you desist from continuing this infantile and wildly off topic baiting.

This is the 'theory, philosophy & history' forum, not the general forum or, indeed, the playground.

 

[phildwyer]

OK, lookit. We'll do this quickly this time.

The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.

In order to conduct this transaction, the value of the sheep must be perceptible (conceptually not empirically) in the physical body of the goat.

When the parties look at the goat, they must perceive not only the physical body of the goat, but also the value of the sheep.

Is everyone with me so far?

 

[5t3IIa]

I'll say 'Yeah....and?' then leave it to other people to shout and scream at you.

 

[fractionMan]

You can look at both, quantify their value to yourself and decide to swap, or not.

 

[newme]

OK, lookit. We'll do this quickly this time.

The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.

In order to conduct this transaction, the value of the sheep must be perceptible (conceptually not empirically) in the physical body of the goat.

When the parties look at the goat, they must perceive not only the physical body of the goat, but also the value of the sheep.

Is everyone with me so far?

A sheep is worth something, right, you and Sainsburys agree on this, next?

 

[Santino]

My mate knows a lot about wine but I don't perceive that in his body.

 

[kyser_soze]

But would you want to swap him for a sommelier?

 

[Santino]

But would you want to swap him for a sommelier?

Free range?

 

[kyser_soze]

Battery. I find the free range ones tend to be a bit radical in their wine reccomendations.

 

[Santino]

Battery. I find the free range ones tend to be a bit radical in their wine reccomendations.

I can't bear to see their little faces in those cages.

Some of them go their whole lives without seeing a decent Malbec.

 

[Corax]

Too many assumptions in your argument so far Phil. If you're going to hinge it on this value perceived in the body of a goat thing, then first of all you need to prove that the goat exists.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK, lookit. We'll do this quickly this time.

The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.

In order to conduct this transaction, the value of the sheep must be perceptible (conceptually not empirically) in the physical body of the goat.

When the parties look at the goat, they must perceive not only the physical body of the goat, but also the value of the sheep.

Is everyone with me so far?

why is he swapping the sheep for the goat?

 

[newme]

why is he swapping the sheep for the goat?

I did wonder this myself but decided Id just go with it for now as at some point Id like to see where this is going. Maybe hes moving to a mountainous region? or has a hankering for some feta?