bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
any sign of god yet?
The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
It's vulnerable to Augustine's famous refutation though.kyser_soze said:
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Trump, trump, trumpety trumpgurrier said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
That means you'll be beating yourself up. If there's a nutter on this thread, it's you.
JonathanS2
New Member
Hmm, a pseudo-scientific/philosophical/theological version of Mornington Crescent? That could be fun ...
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
That only applies on Hegel's birthday when taking a route through Cockfosters, though.
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
It already is fun - though I'm still waiting for the laser display board to light up with the revelation about God's existence.JonathanS2 said:
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/waitgod/
Note the URL as well. Merely a coincidence? That's clear evidence of God's hand in the universe, you blind capitalist Darwinian materialists, as you would know if you'd ever read any Kant.
Note the URL as well. Merely a coincidence? That's clear evidence of God's hand in the universe, you blind capitalist Darwinian materialists, as you would know if you'd ever read any Kant.
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Nope - and because of statements like this:Brainaddict said:
So he's made the assumption that God exists (otherwise how could he/she/it create the human mind?), in an attempted proof of God's existence. Not rational at allphildwyer said:
And I do wonder how a God which created mind, but nothing material, is going to be remotely relevant to anything even if we do accept his existence.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
phildwyer said:
You're fending yourself off, phil?
Is that another euphemism you've come up because you're ashamed of your addiction to masturbation?
First of all, anyone who thinks that my proof is taking too long should direct their complaints to the ragged band of cackling mockers who continue to traipse in my wake. Without their incessant chorus of whoops and hoots, we would have arrived at our destination long ago. At present, however, we are forced to pause periodically in order to purge the most noxious of them from our midst. Anyway, after one of our regular spring-cleaning sessions, I shall try today to clear up the remaining objections to my case thus far. Tomorrow, I shall expand on what doubtless seems to many of you my rather startling assertion that value is a spirit. As usual, I shall deal with you one by one.
NINOSAVATTE: I am afraid that the time has come for you to leave this thread. You have openly boasted that your only purpose here is to disrupt and derail. Even BRAINADDICT, even GURRIER, have occasionally managed to contribute something of worth to the discussion, but you have done (and apparently intend to do) nothing but inflict your dour, humorless, deadly dull jibes on us at regular intervals. And your French is painfully atrocious. You are utterly lacking in joie de vivre, jeu d’esprit and je ne sais quois. Your effervescent wit keeps me amused all day—I *don’t* think. Be off with you.
VIOLENTPANDA: You're on thin ice too. And, in all seriousness for a moment, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for endorsing, on another thread, the myth that Jews are "tight-fisted." I mean that, you should be ashamed.
FRUITLOOP: You are still equating *price* with *value.* Everything you say is true of an object’s *price*--it is determined by the market, by the laws of supply-and-demand as well as by the costs of production and so on. But price is a measure, and an expression of something else, something that lies behind it and to which it refers. This something else is financial value in the abstract, and it is with this strange and mysterious force that we will be primarily concerned here.
DOOMSY: I agree that everything God does is logical, and this is in fact a tautology. But I would add the proviso that prefect logic is unavailable to the human mind, since we are placed in particular and determinate social and historical circumstances, and the perspective of the totality is unavailable to us. Hence the expression “God moves in mysterious ways.”
VALVE: I have not conflated “use” and “usefulness,” but have introduced a third category: *use-value.* This refers to a value that only exists for human beings but which is also an inherent property of the object’s physical body.
BLOOM: The a priori does not *necessarily* come from God, but it certainly does *not* come from experience, or from the world. The a priori is what makes human experience of the world possible. It must therefore either come from God or be somehow “hard-wired” into the human mind. If the latter is the case, we are faced with the impossible task of explaining where it comes from: clearly evolution is not a possibility in this case.
PARALLEL: I was not assuming the existence of God, I was asked a question about whether I believed He had created animals, and I answered it in the negative. I am at a loss to see why you think that the fact that God created the human mind, if it is proved to be true, would be irrelevant to our experience. There’s not too much experience to be had without a mind, as Nino will tell you.
JONTHANS2: I still don’t see, and you haven’t shown me, why you think animals can conceptualize. With regard to Koko I refer you to the intervention by:
MAOMAO: I completely agree that the Koko experiment is bullshit. But if you think that animals can conceptualize, in the sense that I am using the term, you would have to show animals that can either (a) speak, or (b) exchange different quantities of different objects—two sticks for three carrots or whatever. And, despite the best attempts of Koko’s manipulators, there are no such animals anywhere in the universe.
I think that takes care of everything, but please let me know if I’ve missed anyone out—it can be hard to wade through the deluge of nuttiness that periodically floods this thread. If I hear no further objections, I shall proceed to stage seven of my argument tomorrow.
NINOSAVATTE: I am afraid that the time has come for you to leave this thread. You have openly boasted that your only purpose here is to disrupt and derail. Even BRAINADDICT, even GURRIER, have occasionally managed to contribute something of worth to the discussion, but you have done (and apparently intend to do) nothing but inflict your dour, humorless, deadly dull jibes on us at regular intervals. And your French is painfully atrocious. You are utterly lacking in joie de vivre, jeu d’esprit and je ne sais quois. Your effervescent wit keeps me amused all day—I *don’t* think. Be off with you.
VIOLENTPANDA: You're on thin ice too. And, in all seriousness for a moment, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for endorsing, on another thread, the myth that Jews are "tight-fisted." I mean that, you should be ashamed.
FRUITLOOP: You are still equating *price* with *value.* Everything you say is true of an object’s *price*--it is determined by the market, by the laws of supply-and-demand as well as by the costs of production and so on. But price is a measure, and an expression of something else, something that lies behind it and to which it refers. This something else is financial value in the abstract, and it is with this strange and mysterious force that we will be primarily concerned here.
DOOMSY: I agree that everything God does is logical, and this is in fact a tautology. But I would add the proviso that prefect logic is unavailable to the human mind, since we are placed in particular and determinate social and historical circumstances, and the perspective of the totality is unavailable to us. Hence the expression “God moves in mysterious ways.”
VALVE: I have not conflated “use” and “usefulness,” but have introduced a third category: *use-value.* This refers to a value that only exists for human beings but which is also an inherent property of the object’s physical body.
BLOOM: The a priori does not *necessarily* come from God, but it certainly does *not* come from experience, or from the world. The a priori is what makes human experience of the world possible. It must therefore either come from God or be somehow “hard-wired” into the human mind. If the latter is the case, we are faced with the impossible task of explaining where it comes from: clearly evolution is not a possibility in this case.
PARALLEL: I was not assuming the existence of God, I was asked a question about whether I believed He had created animals, and I answered it in the negative. I am at a loss to see why you think that the fact that God created the human mind, if it is proved to be true, would be irrelevant to our experience. There’s not too much experience to be had without a mind, as Nino will tell you.
JONTHANS2: I still don’t see, and you haven’t shown me, why you think animals can conceptualize. With regard to Koko I refer you to the intervention by:
MAOMAO: I completely agree that the Koko experiment is bullshit. But if you think that animals can conceptualize, in the sense that I am using the term, you would have to show animals that can either (a) speak, or (b) exchange different quantities of different objects—two sticks for three carrots or whatever. And, despite the best attempts of Koko’s manipulators, there are no such animals anywhere in the universe.
I think that takes care of everything, but please let me know if I’ve missed anyone out—it can be hard to wade through the deluge of nuttiness that periodically floods this thread. If I hear no further objections, I shall proceed to stage seven of my argument tomorrow.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Hey, sophistry boy!! How about you take your 'proofs' and compile them into one or two posts that can then be argued with instead of this US TV season length, multi-part epic extravaganza?
It'll still be bollocks but at least it'll be quickly digestible bollocks. A bit like sheep.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I cackle. I mock. I have a ragged band. Apparently. Join me and traipse in phil's wakephildwyer said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Traipse on!!! 
I'm not sure if I'm quite ragged enough for the band, but I can tear a few holes in my trousers if that will help?Brainaddict said:I cackle. I mock. I have a ragged band. Apparently. Join me and traipse in phil's wake
What type of music will we play to go with the cackling and mocking?
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Greensleeves I think.gurrier said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I'll not be ragged, but I'll certainly traipse along and join in the cackling and mocking.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Hooray! We have a bourgoise addition to our band of honest working men!kyser_soze said:
I'd suggest you at least make an effort with the raggedness though. Stab a few holes in your jeans or summat. No, you're not allowed to buy them with holes - let's have a little authenticity!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
phildwyer said:
Sorry, I got as far as the capitlised 'truth' and fell about laughing...
Typing Nelly the Elephant into Google wasn't *that* hard...and no I couldn't remember the preamble or 4th verse. Unlike you clearly I'm not regressing into a sensence of second childhood...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
so, this quest to prove the existence of god ain't going too well, then?phildwyer said:
- Status
Similar threads
