The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
trashpony said:
That's what he does: he's an arrogant egomaniac who hasn't got time for other people or their views. In phil's world only his view is the correct one and he is dazzled by the image of the percieved 'beauty' of his thoughts and opinions. This is why he cannot see anything else.
One way to view this thread and others he has started is to see it as an extension of his ego. Indeed, when he talks of "God" he is, perhaps, referring to himself. Personally I think he is suffering from a variety of psychological conditions: one of which may be Hollywood syndrome - which is a form of narcissism.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
phildwyer said:
Twat. That's something you dream about, isn't it?
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Don't you love the way that when phil shoots himself in the foot, he doesn't just take potshots with a little pistol, he gets a huge Heckler & Koch machine gun and turns his feet into a bloody pulp? It's very entertaining to watch. Carry right on phil.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nino_savatte said:
That or he believes he's pulling off some elaborate hoax whereby he "proves" his hypothesis, but only in relation to his g-dhood and dominion over the poor schmucks of Urban that he managed to decieve.
As far as "pulling off" goes, however, I believe it's an apt description of phildwyer's behaviour.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ViolentPanda said:
Or as Iggy Pop might say "he's banging on his drum, having lots of fun".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Brainaddict said:
It does have a certain fascination, doesn't it?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nino_savatte said:Or as Iggy Pop might say "he's banging on his drum, having lots of fun".
He is.
The fact that so many of his intellectual peers (and there are lots of people with 3 'A' levels and a good vocabulary) consider him to be a wanker appears to me to show that your original labelling off him as an onanist was accurate.
the story thus far (reader's digest version)
I'd like to summarise Phil's argument so far, as much for my own satisfaction as anything else:
People have the ability to categorise objects in the world, and to communicate those categories to others. Phil feels that this is an ability unique to humans, whereas I (and others) think it is present in other animals but to a lesser degree - in effect, we are to categorisation and communication as elephants are to noses: the inheritors of the highest complexity of evolution of a particular group of related traits. The categories that we can perceive in things range from those whose members are completely determined by the objects themselves to those that are mostly subjective along a continuum that could be represented as:
length ------ colour ----------value
since even aliens would presumably agree on how long something is (assuming we could translate their units of measurement), whereas colour perception could only be constant for beings that see the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and value is highly variant from one person to another.
A subset of human activity is called 'exchange'. This has been seen for a while as a particularly important area of human activity, for reasons which may be inherent but which I am inclined to believe are socio-political. In order to take part in exchange, it is a precondition that objects must be able to be seen as having value. Phil additionally maintains that the fact that they all possess value means that they must have some element which is common to all of them, and this element arises from their participation in labour, which he takes to mean the totality of human activity. So it follows that things have value through their involvement in some specific kind of human activity, even if it's not immediately obvious what that activity is.
Of course, we kind of already knew this, as it was initally stated that for things to take part in exchange they have to have value, and as 'exchange' is a subset of 'all human activity', it follows that anything that could take part in exchange (and therefore has value) also takes part in the 'totality of human subjective activity'. The problem I often find with this kind of totalising narrative is that is suffers from problems of disaggregation: it obviously doesn't make sense to say that every activity imparts value to objects (napping, farting etc), so we're still left with the question of what kinds of activity affect the value of objects. What Phil's answer to this is, isn't clear at the moment, but personally I would have thought that one answer is that only activities that affect the relationship of marginal utility between actors and products can affect value.
N.B. This kind of description, whilst interesting and perhaps useful, can only ever represent the general social nature of exchange etc. For various reasons the world of actual prices and rates isn't directly accessible from this level of abstraction; i.e. it has only an analytic character and no predictive capacity.
Did I go wrong anywhere?
I'd like to summarise Phil's argument so far, as much for my own satisfaction as anything else:
People have the ability to categorise objects in the world, and to communicate those categories to others. Phil feels that this is an ability unique to humans, whereas I (and others) think it is present in other animals but to a lesser degree - in effect, we are to categorisation and communication as elephants are to noses: the inheritors of the highest complexity of evolution of a particular group of related traits. The categories that we can perceive in things range from those whose members are completely determined by the objects themselves to those that are mostly subjective along a continuum that could be represented as:
length ------ colour ----------value
since even aliens would presumably agree on how long something is (assuming we could translate their units of measurement), whereas colour perception could only be constant for beings that see the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and value is highly variant from one person to another.
A subset of human activity is called 'exchange'. This has been seen for a while as a particularly important area of human activity, for reasons which may be inherent but which I am inclined to believe are socio-political. In order to take part in exchange, it is a precondition that objects must be able to be seen as having value. Phil additionally maintains that the fact that they all possess value means that they must have some element which is common to all of them, and this element arises from their participation in labour, which he takes to mean the totality of human activity. So it follows that things have value through their involvement in some specific kind of human activity, even if it's not immediately obvious what that activity is.
Of course, we kind of already knew this, as it was initally stated that for things to take part in exchange they have to have value, and as 'exchange' is a subset of 'all human activity', it follows that anything that could take part in exchange (and therefore has value) also takes part in the 'totality of human subjective activity'. The problem I often find with this kind of totalising narrative is that is suffers from problems of disaggregation: it obviously doesn't make sense to say that every activity imparts value to objects (napping, farting etc), so we're still left with the question of what kinds of activity affect the value of objects. What Phil's answer to this is, isn't clear at the moment, but personally I would have thought that one answer is that only activities that affect the relationship of marginal utility between actors and products can affect value.
N.B. This kind of description, whilst interesting and perhaps useful, can only ever represent the general social nature of exchange etc. For various reasons the world of actual prices and rates isn't directly accessible from this level of abstraction; i.e. it has only an analytic character and no predictive capacity.
Did I go wrong anywhere?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
This thread has better staying power than a marathon runner!!!
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Fruitloop said:
You never mentioned God once!
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
kyser_soze said:
Its the humour that carries it through.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
just checking in, not reading the thread, but do i need to go to church yet?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
bluestreak said:
Nah, still not there yet.
I'm on tenterhooks with suspence tho...
gurrier said:
Obviously, the only way this thread has any chance of arriving at its destination is if I refuse to feed the trolls. From now on, therefore, I will return to strict observance of my one post per day limit (although that post may be divided into two or three for convenience). I will also avoid being drawn into the petty backbiting that thrills the trolls and nutters so much. This means resisting even the temptation to pay back in his own currency the mendacious and ignorant wretch known as:
GURRIER: In response to my distinguishing between "exchange-value" and "value," you ask "what is this value?" You point out that your "cracking one off" as you so charmingly put it, produces no value (we except here the value it presumably has for the unfortunate Mrs. Gurrier who, we sincerely hope, is thereby spared your foul embraces for the evening). You also admit the distinction between use-value (the cow qua cow) and exchange-value (the cow qua value-of-lamb). What you do not see is that exchange-value is merely the *expression,* the *manifestation* of a logically prior concept. Obviously the exchange-value of the cow in the body of the lamb has no physical existence. But if we want to exchange 10 cows for 7 lambs, we will need a medium in which exchange-value can be expressed or manifested. This common substance, which *manifests* or *expresses* itself as exchange-value, is *value.*
Value is thus an *abstraction* from exchange-value. Where does it come from? In the previous stage of my argument, I established that it can only come from human labour, but also that it cannot come from individual acts of human labour. It is, in fact, human labour *per se,* or human labour in the *abstract.* Does this, perhaps, mean that it is the sum total of all the individual acts of human labour--the socially necessary average labour time required to produce a given commodity? It does not. SNALT (to use this category's common acronym) can determine the *price* of a commodity, but price is only a measurement of value. Price says "the value of commodity X is Y dollars." It *measures* value, it is not the *same* as value.
Here we come to the vital part of this stage of my argument. Value, I contend, is an alienated manifestation of subjective human activity considered as a whole. It is *not* a manifestation of wage-labour, as is commonly thought. It expresses labour in the abstract. But what is labour, considered in the abstract? Not "work," and not "production," we can all think of examples of labour that do not fit those descriptions. Labour in the abstract (or "labour-power" as it is known to philosophy) is co-terminus with human life itself.
I hope that at least some of you will begin to discern the theological implications of my argument at this stage. If you are still a bit lost, however, just let me know and I'll be happy to provide a "road-map" explaining the way to God, although such a brief outline will obviously not substitute for the *proof* that I am offering. Bagel and banana again for me this morning, and then I will respond to those of my interlocuters I deem worthy.
fractionMan
Custom Title
*points and laughs*
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
phildwyer said:
As in - he contended that god had a future.
A strange way to make a proof.
*falls upstairs*
I still can't see the necessity for the third category of abstract 'value'. The category of length requires the precondition 'extension', but there is no way to imagine 'extension' as in any way distinct from how long things are; what has extension has length and vice versa. Likewise there can be no value distinct from exchange- or use-value except for the category of already instantiated labour. A man looking at a cow sees only its use-value to him, it's exchange-value for other objects, and the value that has been instantiated it in (its 'cost').
Price says only 'the price of commodity X is Y dollars'.
If we sift through the garbage spewed by the loonies, there were actually quite a few sensible observations made yesterday. Let me respond to them as best I can.
FRUITLOOP (1): You offer us two cogent posts, to which I shall respond separately. No, I am not equating the "source of value" with the "measurement of value in capitalist society." On the contrary, I am arguing that capitalist society systematically disguises the true source of value, rendering it imperceptible to all but the most intrepid investigors. As you have now seen, I'm arguing that, not the "source" of value,but *value itself* is *us.* It is human life itself. *We* are value.
FRUITLOOP (2): Yes, basically you've got my argument right. You object that not every human activity (Gurrier's "cracking one off," for instance) creates value, and you are right. But my argument is that value is human activity in the abstract, per se, considered as a whole etc etc., rather than individual acts, or even the sum total of individual acts. It is human subjective activity as a *concept.* Are you still with me?
PARALLEL: Sorry mate, you've lost me. I'm not saying that "language doesn't exist," for that would be a silly thing to say. Please explain further if you so wish, and I will get back to you.
AXON: You question my distinction between animal and human consciousness. I take it, however, that you accept that there *is* such a distinction to be made, and that you merely dispute the boundary line I draw? Or is it that you think the difference is quantitatve rather than qualitative? If the latter, I would point out that logically, at a certain point, quantitatve difference turns into qualitative difference. So if you agree that the quantitative difference between the human and the animal mind is very large indeed, you have conceded my point. I think so anyway, let me know if you disagree.
888: The absolute distinction between human and animal consciousness is necessary to prove the existence of God. I do not believe that God exists for animals, I do not believe they are conscious of Him, or that He created them. I believe both of human beings. So it is incumbent upon me to show that the two kinds of mind are qualitatively different.
EXOSCULATE: Go away. This is not a thread for Christians to prosyletize. I am not a Christian, I despise prosyletizers, and I especially despise Christian prosyletizers. I tell you straight that you are not welcome here. Go and preach your "Word" elsewhere, freak.
AZRAEL: Again, you are right that love *should* be the foundation of human csonciousness. But I am not concrned here with what ahould be, but with what *is.* I can and will show you why love is not, empirically, the foundation of human consciousness. Will that suffice?
TRASHPONY: It appears that you have merely been playing with my affections, tossing your mane to get my attention, only to shy away when approached. Very well, but please refrain from criticizing me for not answering objections when you neither make any yourself, nor point out those made by others. You admit that: "I was only posting on this thread because I thought it shouldn't be a men-only discussion." I fully agree. Feel free to continue.
Right, that's it for today. No trolls will be responded to, no loonies chastized, no liars exposed. I'm going to work. Tomorrow, I shall refute any objections to parts three through five of my argument and, if there remains time enough, advance part six.
FRUITLOOP (1): You offer us two cogent posts, to which I shall respond separately. No, I am not equating the "source of value" with the "measurement of value in capitalist society." On the contrary, I am arguing that capitalist society systematically disguises the true source of value, rendering it imperceptible to all but the most intrepid investigors. As you have now seen, I'm arguing that, not the "source" of value,but *value itself* is *us.* It is human life itself. *We* are value.
FRUITLOOP (2): Yes, basically you've got my argument right. You object that not every human activity (Gurrier's "cracking one off," for instance) creates value, and you are right. But my argument is that value is human activity in the abstract, per se, considered as a whole etc etc., rather than individual acts, or even the sum total of individual acts. It is human subjective activity as a *concept.* Are you still with me?
PARALLEL: Sorry mate, you've lost me. I'm not saying that "language doesn't exist," for that would be a silly thing to say. Please explain further if you so wish, and I will get back to you.
AXON: You question my distinction between animal and human consciousness. I take it, however, that you accept that there *is* such a distinction to be made, and that you merely dispute the boundary line I draw? Or is it that you think the difference is quantitatve rather than qualitative? If the latter, I would point out that logically, at a certain point, quantitatve difference turns into qualitative difference. So if you agree that the quantitative difference between the human and the animal mind is very large indeed, you have conceded my point. I think so anyway, let me know if you disagree.
888: The absolute distinction between human and animal consciousness is necessary to prove the existence of God. I do not believe that God exists for animals, I do not believe they are conscious of Him, or that He created them. I believe both of human beings. So it is incumbent upon me to show that the two kinds of mind are qualitatively different.
EXOSCULATE: Go away. This is not a thread for Christians to prosyletize. I am not a Christian, I despise prosyletizers, and I especially despise Christian prosyletizers. I tell you straight that you are not welcome here. Go and preach your "Word" elsewhere, freak.
AZRAEL: Again, you are right that love *should* be the foundation of human csonciousness. But I am not concrned here with what ahould be, but with what *is.* I can and will show you why love is not, empirically, the foundation of human consciousness. Will that suffice?
TRASHPONY: It appears that you have merely been playing with my affections, tossing your mane to get my attention, only to shy away when approached. Very well, but please refrain from criticizing me for not answering objections when you neither make any yourself, nor point out those made by others. You admit that: "I was only posting on this thread because I thought it shouldn't be a men-only discussion." I fully agree. Feel free to continue.
Right, that's it for today. No trolls will be responded to, no loonies chastized, no liars exposed. I'm going to work. Tomorrow, I shall refute any objections to parts three through five of my argument and, if there remains time enough, advance part six.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
I wish you'd go away - I think your godspots growing haemorrhoids.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
phildwyer said:
Phil (or should I start calling you Zarathustra?
),How exactly are you able to justify your claim that human labour is the source of all value? Didn't Marx give this short shrift, with good reason, in "Critique of the Gotha Programme"?:
So, according to Marx, you are peddling bourgeois mystification as philosophical truth.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
are we nearly there yet? 
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Pickman's model said:are we nearly there yet?
If its a boy - can I call him Jesus?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i suspect damien would be more appropriate...exosculate said:
As I understand it, from a marxist point of view 'exchange value' is the manifestation/expression of "use value" filtered through various distorting factors (fetishisation of commodities, etc). The *value* of which phil speaks seems to be some sort of inherent mystical value which has about as much evidence to support it as does the flying spaghetti monster praise be to him. If you are allowed to introduce such inherent qualities into things (as opposed to use value which is a human, or social, projection of a quality onto a thing) then you might as well just cut to the chase and claim that exchange value is the expression of the FSM himself. There is exactly as much evidence to back it up.
If we want to exchange 10 cows for 7 lambs we don't need anything at all, we just swap 'em. Barter doesn't need any concrete medium to manifest exchange values, as the objects are themselves the manifestation of the exchange values. The medium in which exchange values are expressed or manifested in more advanced economies is called 'money'. The common substance which *manifests* or *expresses* itself as exchange value is *use value* which is not an inherent or metaphysical quality at all, but related to the practical needs of humans in society.
- Status
Similar threads
