The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[Pickman's model]

The fact that God did not create the material world does not imply that He is not manifest within it. In any case, it depends what you mean by "create." Obviously any omnipotent being would, in a sense, have "created" everything that exists. But equally obviously our bodies and those of animals are the products of evolution, not creation *ex nihilo.*

why is it "obvious" that "our bodies" are the products of evolution?

it wasn't bloody obvious to that ussher bloke, nor to william hervey. nor to some of the greatest religious & philosophical -- and scientifick -- minds the world's produced.

 

[kyser_soze]

The fact that God did not create the material world does not imply that He is not manifest within it. In any case, it depends what you mean by "create." Obviously any omnipotent being would, in a sense, have "created" everything that exists. But equally obviously our bodies and those of animals are the products of evolution, not creation *ex nihilo.*

I.e. God created the world but not each person individually, who were all created by their parents having sex.

He did however, create..what? Human minds? Thought?

You're starting to flounder here Phil...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Oh right, this again. *Use-value* is an inherent property (or, to be more precise, inherent in the properties) of the object. Why? Because you need the object to be physically present in order to use it. You seem to think that the fact that it is only useful for human beings means that its use-value is not inherent in its properties, but in fact there is no contradiction here. Use-value can be both inherent in the object and only existant for human beings. I can't see the logical difficulty.

But "use-value" is different for different valuers in different situations. So it can't be purely present as a property of the object - unless it is actually just the same as the aspects of the object that the valuer considers in context and uses to judge value, in other words, it's not a value at all.

 

[phildwyer]

why is it "obvious" that "our bodies" are the products of evolution?

it wasn't bloody obvious to that ussher bloke, nor to william hervey. nor to some of the greatest religious & philosophical -- and scientifick -- minds the world's produced.

It is obvious that human beings evolved from apes. But this is in no way incompatible with an intelligent designer of the universe, despite what the Darwinian fundamentalists will tell you. When they do (and they will), I can give you some questions to ask them that are guaranteed to produce entertaining results.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is obvious that human beings evolved from apes. But this is in no way incompatible with an intelligent designer of the universe, despite what the Darwinian fundamentalists will tell you. When they do (and they will), I can give you some questions to ask them that are guaranteed to produce entertaining results.

no!

WHY is it obvious? eh? because apes look a little like humans?

there's a fair fucking gap between an ape and a human, be the ape never so well mannered. if we are descended from apes, what the flying fuck are they still doing about? and why aren't closer relatives like neaderthals &c? eh?

 

[Brainaddict]

no!

WHY is it obvious? eh? because apes look a little like humans?

there's a fair fucking gap between an ape and a human, be the ape never so well mannered. if we are descended from apes, what the flying fuck are they still doing about? and why aren't closer relatives like neaderthals &c? eh?

This thread (or should I say phildwyer) brings out the troll in everyone

 

[phildwyer]

But "use-value" is different for different valuers in different situations. So it can't be purely present as a property of the object - unless it is actually just the same as the aspects of the object that the valuer considers in context and uses to judge value, in other words, it's not a value at all.

No, its not "purely" present as a property of the object, yes it can be different for different people etc. None of this obviates my point. Once again, the three-fold distinction I am establishing is between use-value, exchange-value and value *per se* (aka financial value). Have you grasped the nature of this distinction now? It is by no means easy at first, but it can certainly be explained in language that everyone can understand. I thought I'd already done this, but maybe not? I know its easy to get distracted by the silly people.

 

[kyser_soze]

But surely financial value comes under exchange value, since all 'financial value' is, is the value of X object exchanged for Y promises to pay, and that finance is just another way of managing and putting a value on the exchange of goods?

 

[Pickman's model]

but why's god have to have some sort of exchange value anyway?

are some people's prayers worth more than others, & if so who detemines that? some sort of celestial secretariat?

 

[kyser_soze]

but why's god have to have some sort of exchange value anyway?

are some people's prayers worth more than others, & if so who detemines that? some sort of celestial secretariat?

Pope

Bishop

Priest

Acolyte

Layperson

?

I don't see what exchange value and whether monkey's get it or not has to do with prooving Gods' existance meself.

 

[phildwyer]

But surely financial value comes under exchange value, since all 'financial value' is, is the value of X object exchanged for Y promises to pay, and that finance is just another way of managing and putting a value on the exchange of goods?

Close. Financial value certainly comes *from* exchange-value, but we can't equate the two. As I showed in my initial example of the cow and the lamb, exchange-value already exists in barter, while financial value does not. Financial value is exchange-value in the *abstract,* once it has been *abstracted* from material objects. For this reason, I call it the *concept* of exchange-value. The next distinction to grasp is that between financial value and *money,* but you're probably aware of that already (if only because I patiently explained it about three hundred posts ago).

 

[Pickman's model]

Pope

Bishop

Priest

Acolyte

Layperson

?

but what if yr a lutheran and therefore believe in the priesthood of all believers & salvation by faith alone? eh?

 

[Fruitloop]

The next distinction to grasp is that between financial value and *money,* but you're probably aware of that already (if only because I patiently explained it about three hundred posts ago).

Can you reprise this briefly as I didn't get it the first time (cut and paste is fine).

 

[phildwyer]

Can you reprise this briefly as I didn't get it the first time (cut and paste is fine).

No problem, this is me talking to GURRIER about two hundred posts ago (he never replied, needless to say).

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?”

 

[Crispy]

Do we not call it a “spirit?”

Not if you want to be taken seriously, no.

 

[phildwyer]

Not if you want to be taken seriously, no.

This is going to be the next stage of my argument, actually. What would you call it? An idea?

 

[Brainaddict]

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?”

Oh this is poor. This is very poor indeed. 0 out of 10. This is where you've been going for 500 fucking posts? I thought (god knows why) that at least it would be *vaguely* defensible.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh this is poor. This is very poor indeed. 0 out of 10. This is where you've been going for 500 fucking posts? I thought at least it would be *vaguely* defensible.

i didn't.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Hi, only been reading this since page 10 (I read the first page but it didn't seem much different tbh), so, is phildwyer's main supposition so far that god did not create the material world but created logical human minds?

 

[Crispy]

This is going to be the next stage of my argument, actually. What would you call it? An idea?

That's a better word, yes. Please continue

 

[Brainaddict]

Hi, only been reading this since page 10 (I read the first page but it didn't seem much different tbh), so, is phildwyer's main supposition so far that god did not create the material world but created logical human minds?

phil's suppositions are endless. we all lost count long ago.

 

[Crispy]

Hi, only been reading this since page 10 (I read the first page but it didn't seem much different tbh), so, is phildwyer's main supposition so far that god did not create the material world but created logical human minds?

I think so. I think at the moment, he's working on the unique non-material creations of those minds.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

phil's suppositions are endless. we all lost count long ago.

After noticing that Fridgemagnet and Phildwyer are still arguing a point from page 1 I didn't think it was really necessary to read the inbetween 9...

 

[Brainaddict]

After noticing that Fridgemagnet and Phildwyer are still arguing a point from page 1 I didn't think it was really necessary to read the inbetween 9...

or indeed any of it...

though it has been fun

 

[fractionMan]

What a bloody let down. I want my money back.

 

[Doomsy]

to a large and growing extent it determines the thoughts and actions of every person in the world.

So does the Sun. Your point being?

 

[gurrier]

No problem, this is me talking to GURRIER about two hundred posts ago (he never replied, needless to say).

Oh sorry about that. Since I've changed my tagline I've gone all soft and almost felt sorry for you so didn't bother pointing out what a pile of steaming nonsense your argument was.

There is no qualitative distinction between exchange value and financial value. They are both abstractions, financial value merely generalises the abstraction already inherent in the concept of exchange value. Financial value is identical to exchange value in economies which are based on generalised commodity production.

Phil still hasn't managed to grasp the concept of 'inherent' qualities. For quality A to be inherent in thing B, A must be present in B regardless of the circumstances in which B finds itself. This is patently not the case with value of any type as value is not inherent in the body of anything.

But, in any case, I think we have established that this part of the argument has failed to convince anybody here. I suggest moving on to the next phase. Although some might say that there is little point in building an argument based upon unproven foundations, I think the urgent requirement for fresh comic material negates this necessity in this case.

 

[Brainaddict]

And just out of interest phil, is there anything you've said so far that couldn't be summed up by saying: 'humans are capable of abstract thought'?

Is this what you meant? If not, could you explain how what you are saying is any different? If so, why didn't you just bloody say it?

 

[Doomsy]

This is going to be the next stage of my argument, actually. What would you call it? An idea?

Let me get this straight, money is God?

 

[Crispy]

Although some might say that there is little point in building an argument based upon unproven foundations

*wags finger*

Ah! but you don't need proof for logic!
However, logic is something sorely lacking so far.