The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[JonathanS2]

This looks entertaining. Anyone mind if I join in? Might make me stop watching the cricket for a minute at least (a sport I abhor and despise as dull, turgid, boring, uneventful, obtuse and well not very entertaining, and yet ...).

So...

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.

... if you'll forgive my selective quoting, but it looks as if this is forming the core of your argument.

So there is clearly a difference between the human mind and the mind of any other given animal, yes, this is undoubtedly and unarguably true. We might even be on fairly safe ground to categorise this difference in such a way as to put a value judgement on it (just for fun, seeing as we're putting value judgements on everything else), and say that the human mind is better/more intelligent/more sophisticated in some way than any other animal's mind, possibly by quite some margin.

There is also clearly a difference between, say, the chimpanzee mind and the mind of all other non-ape primates which could also have that same 'better' value judgement put upon it, even qualified by 'very large'. I say non-ape, as gorillas seem qutie clever too, and I wouldn't want to upset any gorilla fans out there by asserting the abilities of the chimpanzee over them.

So, imagine a world where chimpanzees (let's not bring dolphins into this, please) are the 'clearly most intelligent' animals around. They might even just be intelligent enough to put themselves up on a pedestal and say that they aren't animals like the rest of the natural world, they are something different and special about them, there is a difference between their consciousness and mere animal consciousness. Perhaps then they'd be allowed by you the luxury of having been created by some metaphysical thing that you may call 'God' and they would likely call 'oook'.

Now imagine a world in which neither people nor chimps exist and.. do you see where I'm going with this? The core of your argument would appear to be that there is something special about humans that marks them apart from the rest of the 'mere animals'. My counterargument would be that there is nothing special about the difference in our abilities. We are cleverer than chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are cleverer than marmosets. Marmosets are cleverer than antelopes. Antelopes are cleverer than crocodiles. Perhaps the discussions about 'value' and 'exchange' are an attempt to categorise this supposedly special difference in our abilities, but talk to any biologist and I'm sure you'll find myriad examples of exchange and value in the natural world, with increasing abstractness depending on the intelligence of the animals involved. Sure, our notions of value are more abstract and sophisticated than any other animals, but again it's just the top of a sliding scale encompassing the whole animal world.

So there. Of course, maybe I just don't feel special enough, and that's why the whole God thing doesn't work for me ...

 

[axon]

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.

Well, it's not the position of a boundary line I dispute but the existence of one. You stated earlier "the difference between human and animal conceptual abilities is one of kind rather than one of degree?", which implies you think there is not just a qualititative difference but some fundamental difference.
As for a quantitative difference turning into a qualititative difference,yes logically this is the case but it does not mean that the range needed to obtain this transformation is included within the two extremes of the system in question.

Also you may have missed my point regarding

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 contend that value doesn't amount to subjective human activity considered as a whole. Value is an aspect of subjective activity (whether it be by humans or chimpanzees). Of course if you were to make the concept of value a very very wide category then it could possibly encompass subjective human activity. But then again the same arguement could be made that the concept of cupboards amounts to subjective human activity considered as a whole, given a wide enough definition of "cupboards".

But enough of this banter, show us yer god.

 

[andrewwyld]

God's existence can be demonstrated rationally.

The impossibility of such a demonstration can be demonstrated rationally. The impossibility of demonstrating God doesn't exist is, of course, equally great. The best that can be hoped for is a sane argument for or against the position; both can be attempted, although usually the nature of the subject matter makes this unlikely, as there is nothing like a fallacious shouting match to liven up the day (except some sort of injury).

I have heard people argue God exists because otherwise we would not have a word, "god" (although we also have a word, "phlogiston", which fails to explain combustion, although it is not as silly a theory as it is usually painted). I have heard other people argue God does not exist because the energy of the universe is continuously increasing, a conclusion reached by using a relativistic expression for mass and a Newtonian expression for kinetic and potential energy -- in effect, adding two and two, making five, subtracting four, and imagining that the remaining one meant something.

These examples are meant to show that people are really, really desperate to have a proof of their position and will go to very silly lengths to generate one.

Anyway -- I am sure your proof is way better than these but it cannot be completely defensible! For that matter, virtually nothing is, so your best bet is to take a weaker, but more defensible, attitude of arguing in favour without claiming complete proof.

 

[comstock]

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.

You've lost me there. So there is a God, but he created man alone, not animals. So according to your proof who/what created animals, and the planet they live on and the rest of the physical universe? And how do you deal with the theory of evolution etc.

As there was clearly a time before man, was there also a time before God?

And who created time?

Is it me being thick here?

 

[bugsy7]

I've been following this for yonks now and I'm still none the wiser.
I wish this filldwya geezer would just get on with it and present his "evidence" so that each of us can evaluate it individually. But instead of that, he's leading us up the fucking garden path. Treating us like eejits who need to be taken along slowly because we're not in his intellectual league.
Fucking pompous, presumptuous twat!

MsG

 

[Jo/Joe]

it sure is taking a long time, I could have created the earth by now and populated it with lots of lovely animals.

 

[kyser_soze]

After D'Israeli, and apols to his ghost...

A sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.

I think little else needs to be said...

 

[Azrael23]

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?

LOL

Like I said I understand the words should and is.

Here

Phil, you still haven`t answered my point from 2 pages ago.

"Isn`t exchange of emotion more important than exchange of commodity"

I am also failing to see how any of this relates to the universal conciousness?

Look I believe in God. IMO its the sum of all conciousness and seeing as theres a lot of conciousness in the cosmos is beyond our understanding ATM.
Knowledge or proof of the concept won`t come from writing long posts with tidbits from textbooks. I believe that if god is the sum of all conciousness then we are in essence a part of that concept. Surely then the best path is inwards to try and find that connection.
Obviously some people will have difficulty in accepting such a concept however if you think about it even our own "inner worlds" are vast and how much can anyone truly say they`ve mapped as it were.
Phil you don`t need to prove it to people this way, the way you prove it is by your deeds and the mark you leave on people.

 

[Brainaddict]

I've been following this for yonks now and I'm still none the wiser.

Confucious say you search for wisdom in wrong place

 

[bluestreak]

bluestreak's daily question: does god exist yet? i'm feeling particularly sinful today and i'd be quite relieved if He doesn't.

 

[Brainaddict]

bluestreak's daily question: does god exist yet? i'm feeling particularly sinful today and i'd be quite relieved if He doesn't.

No but he may do by 2pm, when phil finishes his steak and kidney pie.

You can run, but you can't hide. Really, you can't. He's omnipresent. Or will be, when phil finishes his pie.

 

[kyser_soze]

Dammit I was hoping Benj would be enough to close this down...

 

[phildwyer]

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.

There were several excellent objections raised yesterday, and my refutations of these will enable me simultaneously to advance stage six of my argument for God. As long as we are not visited by a new plague of fools and hecklers, and as long as the current crop can keep their barracking to a minimum and their drinking within moderation, we should be able to make substantial progress now. Let us begin with GURRIER.

GURRIER: You are floundering like a fish out of water on this terrain. To be more polite, you offer a decent “first-level” interpretation of Marx’s theory of value. But if we consider the matter more deeply, we will soon discover a whole different, higher level of hermeneutic to his reasoning. We will learn, as he says in lines I quoted in my OP, that value is rife with “metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.“ Again I tell you that he was not speaking figuratively here. To advance to this higher level, we must distinguish between, *not* two as you claim, but *three* species of value. They are:

1. Use-value. Contrary to what you say, this is indeed inherent in the physical body of the object. Its is the cow qua cow. It is be impossible for the cow to be useful unless its physical body is present. You cannot get milk from a cow that isn’t there. Obviously this use-value is not “natural,” since it only exists for human beings, nor is it *identical* with the body of the cow, but it is nevertheless an inherent property of the cow, part of the cow’s qualitative essence.

2. Exchange-value. This is the cow qua value-of-lamb. It is not inherent in the cow: it is a human *concept* imposed upon the cow. Despite this, it is perceptible in the body of the cow. It is not perceptible by the senses: it is perceptible by the mind. But human beings are able to recognize this exchange-value in the body of the cow. Exchange-value is not part of the qualitative essence of the cow: it is the cow considered quantitatively, as when ten cows equal seven lambs.

3. Value per se, or to use a term that is strictly inaccurate but may help you grasp the concept, *financial* value. This is the *abstract* form of exchange-value. It is exchange-value *abstracted* from the body of the cow and so, unlike exchange-value, it is not perceptible in the body of the cow. We might say that it is the *concept* of exchange-value. Financial value is necessary for any large-scale exchange of objects. It is this last type of value that will most concern us today.

Now, you appear to assume that financial value is “money.” You are entirely mistaken. Money is the medium in which financial value is represented. It is, if you like, the language in which financial value is expressed. But it *not* the same thing as financial value. It is unsurprising that you miss this Truth, for it has only recently been revealed to us. Consider: until very recently it was universally believed that financial value was somehow inherent in the physical properties of gold and other precious metals. For millennia, people believed that gold *was* financial value, or in a slightly more sophisticated version, that financial value “lived in“ the body of gold. Of course, we now know that this is not true; financial value can be represented in other forms, such as banknotes. But today, the real and ultimate Truth about money is even clearer, for most financial value no longer has *any* material form. There is very little material money, of any kind, in existence compared to the amount of financial value that, as our masters tell us, exists.

Or does it? How can we say that something that has no material being whatsoever “exists?” Well, we can know that it exists by its *effects.* How effective is financial value? Very fucking effective indeed; in fact the Spaniards call money “effectivo.” Anyone can see that financial value is the most effective force in existence, we might even say that it rules the entire world, and that to a large and growing extent it determines the thoughts and actions of every person in the world. So this all-powerful force does not, materially speaking, exist. What do we call such a force? Do we not call it a “spirit?”

Lest any are tempted to sprint ahead and beat me to the finishing-post, I am *not* going to argue that financial value is God. I will consider next what financial value *really* is, and show that it is not what it appears and pretends to be. First, however, I shall return to the other objections made yesterday. Breakfast at the “roach coach” again today for me.

 

[Brainaddict]

It is be impossible for the cow to be useful unless its physical body is present. You cannot get milk from a cow that isn’t there.

Idiot. The cow's usefulness is a product of the presence of the human, not inherent in the cow itself. You can't get milk from a cow if *you're* not there.

*sigh*
Why do I bother?

Answer: because there is yet more entertainment to be had.

 

[phildwyer]

Idiot. The cow's usefulness is a product of the presence of the human, not inherent in the cow itself. You can't get milk from a cow if *you're* not there.

Really Brainaddict, you must not allow your visceral fear and hatred of God to prevent you from reading with due care and attention. As I clearly said above:

"Obviously this use-value is not “natural,” since it only exists for human beings, nor is it *identical* with the body of the cow, but it is nevertheless an inherent property of the cow, part of the cow’s qualitative essence."

Isn't this clear? How could it be clearer? Surely you are prejudiced against God, and very much hope that He will prove not to exist, and this terror drives you into blatant and symptomatic misreading. Unless you are simply here to cause disruption?

 

[Brainaddict]

Really Brainaddict, you must not allow your visceral fear and hatred of God to prevent you from reading with due care and attention. As I clearly said above:

"Obviously this use-value is not “natural,” since it only exists for human beings, nor is it *identical* with the body of the cow, but it is nevertheless an inherent property of the cow, part of the cow’s qualitative essence."

Isn't this clear? How could it be clearer? Surely you are prejudiced against God, and very much hope that He will prove not to exist, and this terror drives you into blatant and symptomatic misreading. Unless you are simply here to cause disruption?

Do you understand the word 'inherent'?

 

[phildwyer]

Do you understand the word 'inherent'?

Yes. Do you? What do you think it means?

 

[Brainaddict]

Yes. Do you? What do you think it means?

In this context it would mean something essential and native to the cow's being - i.e. specifically *not* something projected onto it by human consciousness.

 

[phildwyer]

In this context it would mean something essential and native to the cow's being - i.e. specifically *not* something projected onto it by human consciousness.

No. To be inherent is something different than to be essential. To be inherent is to *inhere* in the essence. It is a quality of the essence, not the essence itself. But it is an *inherent* quality, and thus cannot exist apart from the essence. The fact that use-value only exists for human does not mean that it can be detatched from the body of the object. It cannot. You cannot get milk from a cow that isn't there. Anyway, I have more substantive onjections to respond to, so I will leave you with that.

 

[kyser_soze]

No. To be inherent is something different than to be essential. To be inherent is to *inhere* in the essence. It is a quality of the essence, not the essence itself. But it is an *inherent* quality, and thus cannot exist apart from the essence. The fact that use-value only exists for human does not mean that it can be detatched from the body of the object. It cannot. You cannot get milk from a cow that isn't there. Anyway, I have more substantive onjections to respond to, so I will leave you with that.

I would suggest you take this up with dictionary.com who define 'inherent' thus:

in·her·ent Audio pronunciation of "inherent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.

Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

in·her·ent (n-hrnt, -hr-)
adj.

Occurring as a natural part or consequence.

Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: in-'hir-&nt, in-'her-
Function: adjective
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature <an infant's inherent ability to learn to walk> —in·her·ent·ly adverb

inherent

adj 1: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; "the Ptolemaic system with its built-in concept of periodicity"; "a constitutional inability to tell the truth" [syn: built-in, constitutional, inbuilt, integral] 2: present at birth but not necessarily hereditary; acquired during fetal development [syn: congenital, inborn, innate] 3: in the nature of something though not readily apparent; "shortcomings inherent in our approach"; "an underlying meaning" [syn: implicit in(p), underlying]

 

[FridgeMagnet]

But this is the phil definition of "inherent", in a thread about the phil definition of "god".

phil == Humpty Dumpty

 

[Brainaddict]

No. To be inherent is something different than to be essential. To be inherent is to *inhere* in the essence. It is a quality of the essence, not the essence itself. But it is an *inherent* quality, and thus cannot exist apart from the essence. The fact that use-value only exists for human does not mean that it can be detatched from the body of the object. It cannot. You cannot get milk from a cow that isn't there. Anyway, I have more substantive onjections to respond to, so I will leave you with that.

You don't get it do you? For something to be inherent it has to be inseparable from the cow right?
All you need to do to remove the value from a cow is to remove the humans involved with it. It now no longer has any value.
The value is not, therefore, inherent.

 

[Brainaddict]

But this is the phil definition of "inherent", in a thread about the phil definition of "god".

phil == Humpty Dumpty

Indeed

In which case we must all concede that 'god' exists - for god can mean whatever phil wants him to mean

You win phil.

 

[gurrier]

Actually there is a very good and concrete example that proves (and I do mean proves) Phil wrong about the inherent nature of use-value.

It is quite possible that within some space of time the entire human population will be either lactose intolerant or vegan. At which point the cow's milk will have zero use value for humans. Therefore, the use-value is not inherent in the cow, but is a value projected onto it by humans.

QED.

 

[kyser_soze]

Surely anything only has 'value' when placed in context?

Our poor cow has no inherent or intrinsic value. However, it has potential value as food/clothing for a predator but this value can only be realised when said predator is in the same presence as the cow...

 

[kyser_soze]

In which case we must all concede that 'god' exists - for god can mean whatever phil wants him to mean

God is in all of us, in our hearts and in our heads and in our souls.

 

[Brainaddict]

God is in all of us, in our hearts and in our heads and in our souls.

Where 'god' is defined as 'caffeine'?

 

[kyser_soze]

Where 'god' is defined as 'cafeinne'?

Well for me it's a voice in my head that tells me to go to Whitechapel at night to clean the streets.








































Travis Bickle style

 

[goldenecitrone]

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.

At what point in human evolution did humans become conscious of God? Would it be possible for other animals to become conscious of Him? Has He been sat around for aeons waiting for human consciousness to evolve?

 

[Brainaddict]

Travis Bickle style

OT but who is/was Travis Bickle?