The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[axon]

the difference between human and animal conceptual abilities is one of kind rather than one of degree?

I completely disagree with this poinit. I think it is entirely one of degree; there is no magic point at which brain mass/synaptic connections/human society/levels of labour and exchange suddenly become so great that there is a flash of magic energy and everything is different.
The overlap is blatantly obvious between animal and human conceptual abilities when I mess about with mine using various chemicals, and from the fact that we recognise increasing abilities of animals being able to conceptualise as we go (and loathe to use this expression as it is wrong to imply "up" but you know what I mean) up the evolutionary tree.

So the category of labour in the *abstract* (as opposed to in its *concrete* manifestations) is a very wide category indeed. Does it not amount, in fact, to subjective human activity considered as a whole?

I think you need to expand on this bit. Does labour in the abstract preclude any other abstract concepts (or material entities for that point) from amounting to subjective human activity?

 

[phildwyer]

Although I have little time for attempts to decipher the secrets of the universe through argumentation, I don't think the exercise is entirely pointless. However when phil's tardis-like* intellect is at the controls it most certainly is. Has anybody agreed that any of the stages of his argument are proven?

I demonstrated that his paragraph defining what makes a human being special works perfectly well if you substitute lion for person.

Parallelpipette demonstrated that two of phil's assertions take together implied that language does not exist.

Several people provided evidence that exchange is not the definitive characteristic of human society.

Now we have another set of fantastically unbacked up assertions, built upon these spectacularly unproven foundations.


*labour produces value
*the distinction between work and other subjective activity does not exist
*therefore scratching my arse / cracking one off / whatever I do produces value

What is this value? It's not use value, it's not exchange value (or how much am i offered for scratching my arse?) in fact it's not any kind of value that's recognised by anybody.

It's just pure sophistry and rubbish. The type of thing that you'd expect from a dim philosophy student trying to sound smart and grown up, except phil's not even any good at it.

*tardis-like: it looks a lot bigger from the inside

This is very impressive Gurrier. Since, as you've loudly announced a million times, you have me on ignore, you must have *intuited* my argument by sheer force of will. Anyway, I am delighted that you have finally decided to engage me on the level battlefield of serious debate. I keenly anticipate kicking your arse all over it. Beginning with your schoolboy confusion between "exchange value" and "value." There, I've given you a hint as to what you can expect tomorrow, now run off and read up on quickly, because you're going to need all the knowledge you can pack into your hot little head. Besos, y hasta manana!

 

[Fruitloop]

In stage three, I showed that individual acts of labour cannot be the source of value. Only labour *generally* conceived can play this role.

What does 'the source of value' mean? Does it mean 'the yardstick by which value is measured in capitalist society'? Ascribing value to things doesn't give it any independent existence any more then measuring in feet and inches gives length an autonomous existence; the form must inhere in the content.

 

[parallelepipete]

PARALLEL: The purport of your weird algebra would appear to be that “exchange” and “communication” are both aspects of the same thing—the ability to conceptualize—and that it is this ability rather than exchange which is the definitively human characteristic. Is that fair? I agree: I was illustrating what it is to conceptualize by means of the example of exchange. As I said before, language is the other manifestation of this ability. But this ability lies behind both exchange and communication. Just to be clear, by “conceptualize,” I intend the ability to subsume a particular thing beneath a general category—to recognize that tall brown thing with leaves as a particular instance of the general category “tree.” Are you with me? I shall return to the issue of language at a slightly later stage of my argument.

It was actually my way of showing that, since you had stated that both Exchange and Communication were the defining characteristic of human nature, then they had to be the same thing as each other; and since you also described Language as the other type of Communication, then Exchange and and Language must be mutually exclusive, the logical inference was that Language could not exist.

It was an attempt to draw your attention to this apparent absurd conclusion of your statements, without being able to draw a Venn diagram online.

 

[TeeJay]

Well, MONTEVIDEO, you know your philosophy.

But in any case, please remember what must be clear to you already: that very few, if any, posters on this thread have ever read any philosophy at all.

You really are a thick twat aren't you?

Saying "few, if any" implies "few or none". You have already said that one poster 'knows his philosphy' which completely contradicts this. Why then do you claim that it 'must be clear to us already' that few or none of the poster on this thread have ever read any philosophy at all?

If you are unable to even be consistent or accurate in simple things like this then why the hell should we waste our time thinking you are going to produce a coherent argument for a far more complex topic. You are a joke.

For someone who seems to pride themselves on their understanding of language and logic you have a very shakey grasp on both.

I suggest you stay over in the US and continue to defraud people who don't know any better, with your fake 'brit lit' medievalist posing, and continue to keep them sweet with your rabid neo-platonist religious-right apologisms.

"Come seeling night,
Scarf up the tender eye of pitiful day..."

(you will of course recognise the quote)

 

[kyser_soze]

I think this thread needs to be conducted exclusively from the toilet from now on:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3496810&postcount=47

 

[phildwyer]

I think this thread needs to be conducted exclusively from the toilet from now on:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3496810&postcount=47

Hey man, do you mind? I'm having my lunch. Chicken and broccoli, since you ask.

 

[Disjecta Membra]

although people have already said it, phil this is rediculous you have even began to prove god existence quoting marx ? and value in economics to do this really is strange.

if you were to equate god with energy/existence i could have gone along with you some what but this just silly

in less you state what you mean by god this is going nowhere

and your arrogance is really quite amazing, this is certainly no discussion on the matter(whatever that is)

 

[gurrier]

This is very impressive Gurrier. Since, as you've loudly announced a million times, you have me on ignore, you must have *intuited* my argument by sheer force of will.

There is a button on vbulletin that says 'view post' which allows you to view posts of ignored posters. I have been unable to resist the temptation on this thread of watching you make a royal arse of yourself in public. I'll pray for greater fortitude in future so that I don't waste any more of my time in conversation with arrogant idiots.

Anyway, I am delighted that you have finally decided to engage me on the level battlefield of serious debate.

Don't flatter yourself phil, you're not capable of serious debate. When you first arrived in this forum I spent some time and effort attempting to engage you in serious debate (see: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=107109 ). In the course of this 'debate' I learned just how mendacious and arrogant you are when confronted by somebody who points out the fairly obvious and glaring holes in your argument. For example, you did not take kindly to being made aware of the elementary point that one should have some idea of what the theory of evolution by natural selection is before writing long philosophical tracts about it. A point that has been made to you be large numbers of eminent scientists in the past and which you dismissed by - hilariously - referring to them as 'semi-educated'. That thread provided me with conclusive proof that you are incapable of serious debate and indeed you consider anybody who attempts to engage in serious debate as intellectually inferior to you. Your notion of 'serious debate' is self congratulatory and empty showing off.

I also note that you have once again claimed that "The ideological complicity between Darwin and Adam Smith is well known and generally acknowledged, not least by Darwin himself." Have you forgotten, phil, that I took the time to research this claim and showed it to be a lie?

You see phil, there's no point in trying to engage in serious debate with somebody who completely lacks intellectual integrity. There is, on the other hand, some point in mocking you publicly to minimise the risk that others who know your style less will be browbeaten and bullied by your desperate attempts to appear learned and superior.

I keenly anticipate kicking your arse all over it. Beginning with your schoolboy confusion between "exchange value" and "value." There, I've given you a hint as to what you can expect tomorrow, now run off and read up on quickly, because you're going to need all the knowledge you can pack into your hot little head. Besos, y hasta manana!

No phil, even such a king-sized portion of arrogance can't possibly manage to change the words that I wrote. I wrote "What is this value? It's not use value, it's not exchange value (or how much am i offered for scratching my arse?) in fact it's not any kind of value that's recognised by anybody."

I distinguished between "use value" and "exchange value" and pointed out that your definition of value could not be reconciled with either of these well-defined concepts. When you use a term like 'value' in a way that is contradictory to any of the well known ways in which it is used, the onus on you to specify the definition that you are using. You Imply that people who ask for a definition of a term when you use it in ways that are not commonly understood or well defined are uneducated. In fact, your failure to define such basic foundations of your argument just shows how poor your understanding of logical argument is. Even as philosophers go, you are piss poor at what you do. You haven't even mastered the basic principles of logic.

Furthermore, phil, your very first post to this thread contained the following piece of text

"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.*"

It is in the context of exchange, according to you, that the concept of *value* gets invented. Not only are you guilty of the thing that you incorrectly sneer at me for, you are also guilty of saying things that are demonstrably untrue and ridiculous.

 

[Disjecta Membra]

but what has this got to do with god ?

 

[phildwyer]

I also note that you have once again claimed that "The ideological complicity between Darwin and Adam Smith is well known and generally acknowledged, not least by Darwin himself." Have you forgotten, phil, that I took the time to research this claim and showed it to be a lie?

It seems that our self-styled "pit-bull" has truly slipped the leash. Gurrier's hilarious and desperate eagerness to assure us in his tagline that "I bite" bespeaks an insecurity so profound as to approach the abysmal. You "bite," do you, Sir? My how intimidating. In reality however, his sting more nearly resembles that of the serpent than that of the hound. As with most low animals, he is full of venom, and he uses all his snaky wiles in his endeavor to seduce and deceive. He seems quite unembarrassed at having been stripped and exposed in his oft-repeated *lie* that he had me on ignore: no doubt he has grown accustomed to such public humiliations over many years.

I have no intention of allowing him to derail this thread, as he has so many others, with his obsessive, barking need to defend the long-outdated Darwinist theory of evolution. He has been beaten back to his kennel too often, and too conclusively, for anyone to take his fanaticism on that subject seriously. Two well-known quotations will suffice to send the cur slinking away to his lair. One is from Stephen Jay Gould: "Darwin's theory of evolution is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature." (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002, 25). The other is from Darwin himself:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work". Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)

And that, I do believe, is that. Tune in tomorrow to see me thrash Gurrier again, this time making a mockery of his picayune, pathetic, pipsqueak and pisspoor attempt to make some sense of the labour theory of value. You will not be disappointed.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I think Phil has certainly proved one thing on this thread. Unfortunately, it isn't the existence of God. Back to random meaninglessness then. <Sighs>

 

[Loki]

but what has this got to do with god ?

Fuck knows!

Can someone pm me when phil actually gets to the point and "proves" his assertion?

 

[TeeJay]

He seems quite unembarrassed at having been stripped and exposed in his oft-repeated *lie* that he had me on ignore: no doubt he has grown accustomed to such public humiliations over many years.

I don't think you understand how the "ignore" function works on vbulletin do you?

He actually says he has you on "ignore" by default, but that any specific post can be revealed by clikcing on one button. This doesn't take you off "ignore" - it simply reveals this one post.

Try playing around with your own account and you will see how it works. There is no question that he is "lying".

You spotted snakes with double tongue,
Thorny hedgehogs, be not seen;
Newts and blind-worms do no wrong,
Come not near our Fairy Queen.

Weaving spiders, come not here;
Hence, you long-legg'd spinners, hence;
Beetles black, approach not near;
Worm nor snail, do no offense.

 

[TeeJay]

 

[TeeJay]

...this time making a mockery of his picayune, pathetic, pipsqueak and pisspoor attempt to make some sense of the labour theory of value...

Why are you trying to drag the disaster in New Orleans into all this?

Utterly disgusting! I think you owe everyone an apology.

 

[888]

Why does your thinking insist so much on this qualitative difference between humans and other animals?

 

[888]

*labour produces value
*the distinction between work and other subjective activity does not exist
*therefore scratching my arse / cracking one off / whatever I do produces value

What is this value? It's not use value, it's not exchange value (or how much am i offered for scratching my arse?) in fact it's not any kind of value that's recognised by anybody.

It is, by scratching your arse you have relieved yourself of an itch... you could even sell your arse-scratching service labour to others.

 

[phildwyer]

Can someone pm me when phil actually gets to the point and "proves" his assertion?

Please, Loki and the rest of you, bear with me. I'm very serious when I say I can prove the existence of God rationally, and I fully intend to do so *exclusively* in layman's terms. But you can see for yourselves what kind of maniacs I have to deal with here. Unfortunately, these boards are vulnerable to infestation by the mentally ill and the psychotically deranged. There are also those malicious spirits who simply do not want you to learn the truth, who quite literally hate God, and who will do anything in their power to prevent you from understanding Him. If you'll look back to my OP, you'll see that I fully anticipated having to beat off this mob at regular intervals. Its time-consuming, and it makes what all must surely concede was always a rather ambitious undertaking even more onerous. But I remain steadfast and cheerful, and you may rest assured that I will not allow myself to be dissuaded from bringing you the Light. Just wait until I've dealt with Gurrier, then he'll doubtless crawl off to lick his wounds and pretend to put me on "ignore" again, and we can get on a bit faster after that. Hang in there.

 

[maomao]

Right Phil, anyone who wants to argue with you is mentally deranged

You don't bother even dealing with objections you just deny them. You're an arrogant fucking prick and I hope you die of syphilis.

 

[TeeJay]

...There are also those malicious spirits who simply do not want you to learn the truth, who quite literally hate God, and who will do anything in their power to prevent you from understanding Him...

Are you saying that the devil and his demons are at work on this thread? Maybe you think that mentall ill people are possessed by evil spirits? By the way, who are you referring to when you talk about the "mentally ill"?

Or maybe you are talking about yourself:

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't."

 

[phildwyer]

Right Phil, anyone who wants to argue with you is mentally deranged

You don't bother even dealing with objections you just deny them. You're an arrogant fucking prick and I hope you die of syphilis.

Did we get a bad match from the Adult Dating Services this evening?

 

[Loki]

Please, Loki and the rest of you, bear with me. I'm very serious when I say I can prove the existence of God rationally

Well get on with it then! We're 320+ posts into this marvelous proof you've promised us on this thread and still not a sausage.


...

Just wait until I've dealt with Gurrier, then he'll doubtless crawl off to lick his wounds and pretend to put me on "ignore" again, and we can get on a bit faster after that. Hang in there.

What's gurrier got to do with this "proof"? Can't you tell us anyway?

 

[Jo/Joe]

Being inspired by something an economist says does not meant that your subsequent biological theory is built around it to the exclusion of possibly better ideas. It does not mean Darwin merely attempted to translate Malthus' economics into biological language. Even if there are similarities, it does not make the biology wrong. Dismantle the science by all means, if you can (you can't), but do so with better science. Bashing it with ideological sticks is transparent and pointless.

Now give us god and stop meandering.

 

[phildwyer]

Well get on with it then! We're 320+ posts into this marvelous proof you've promised us on this thread and still not a sausage.
What's gurrier got to do with this "proof"? Can't you tell us anyway?

Only 4 or 5 of these posts are me making substantive attempts to forward my case for God. The rest are:

1. People's objections--mostly reasonable ones.
2. My refutations of those objections.
3. Some people still raising the original objections.
4. My (usually) conclusive refutations of the above.

These four have to be repeated at each stage of my argument. If I refused to take objections, or to refute them, people would moan that I hadn't *proved* the existence of God, wouldn't they? Then we have:

5. The mentally ill.
6. The malicious spirits.
7. The random drunks.

There's really not much I can do about this lot, you must admit. I suppose I should really ignore them, and I usually do, but if I *always* did that, people would complain that I hadn't answered all the objections. I have, however, added the caveat that I will only answer them "within reason." Even that caused squeals of outrage from Trashpony and others. So you can see I'm in a bind. And no, I can't "just tell you" the proof of God's existence. I have to *prove* it, to demonstrate it beyond all rational doubt. There's no point in me "just telling you" and ordering you to take it on faith, you'd tell me to piss off, and quite right too. I'm sure you understand that it is no simple task to prove that God exists, and it is even more difficult to do so in the language of the common man. But it will be more than worth the wait.

 

[Jo/Joe]

It's up to you what you respond to phil.

 

[Loki]

In your first post you said "But, if anyone's genuinely interested, I can take you through it in such a way that you will not only understand, but be utterly and completely convinced by."

326 posts later I'm none the wiser. What's taking you so long?

 

[exosculate]

Only 4 or 5 of these posts are me making substantive attempts to forward my case for God. The rest are:

1. People's objections--mostly reasonable ones.
2. My refutations of those objections.
3. Some people still raising the original objections.
4. My (usually) conclusive refutations of the above.

These four have to be repeated at each stage of my argument. If I refused to take objections, or to refute them, people would moan that I hadn't *proved* the existence of God, wouldn't they? Then we have:

5. The mentally ill.
6. The malicious spirits.
7. The random drunks.

There's really not much I can do about this lot, you must admit. I suppose I should really ignore them, and I usually do, but if I *always* did that, people would complain that I hadn't answered all the objections. I have, however, added the caveat that I will only answer them "within reason." Even that caused squeals of outrage from Trashpony and others. So you can see I'm in a bind. And no, I can't "just tell you" the proof of God's existence. I have to *prove* it, to demonstrate it beyond all rational doubt. There's no point in me "just telling you" and ordering you to take it on faith, you'd tell me to piss off, and quite right too. I'm sure you understand that it is no simple task to prove that God exists, and it is even more difficult to do so in the language of the common man. But it will be more than worth the wait.

OK - bonkers or troll - which is it?

 

[trashpony]

OK - bonkers or troll - which is it?

Bonkers. Why don't you do a poll

 

[phildwyer]

It's up to you what you respond to phil.

Yeah, but just look at post 320 above, from the obviously drunken Maomao. Now, I answered all his objections days ago, and he's clearly forgotten this in his alcohol-haze. Should I answer him? Or should I dismiss him? If I choose the latter, what's to stop him reappearing next time he's on a bender and accusing me of ignoring his arguments again? Once again, I don't want to leave *any* reasonable doubt here, so I have to answer anything that even seems like it may be rational. Unless you want the job of sifting out the drunks, loonies and trouble-makers for me?