The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[slaar]

You're right to say that the Labour Theory of Value is fundamental to my proof, which is nonsense without it. The trouble is, I *have* proved the LTV, over the first 10 or 15 pages of this thread. That's why I think this excercise will never convince everybody, because people will arrive in the middle, and say "hang on, you haven't proved this yet," and I'll have to do it all over again. We'll just go round and round in circles and pointless digressions forever.

I have read, to my eternal chagrin, every post on this thread. I know neoclassical value theory inside out (and abhor it, so I would love somebody to falsify it). I know a fair bit about Marxist value theory. You have proved nothing to my satisfaction.

 

[ViolentPanda]

he HAS!

he's proved it's possible to witter, and witter at greater length than i'd ever believed possible!

To use a much-exercised urbanism:

WORD!

 

[phildwyer]

Just when I thought I was out.... they PULL me back in...

 

[phildwyer]

I have read, to my eternal chagrin, every post on this thread. I know neoclassical value theory inside out (and abhor it, so I would love somebody to falsify it). I know a fair bit about Marxist value theory. You have proved nothing to my satisfaction.

Well, it might have been better if you'd said this weeks ago when I was actually proving it, but anyway, I'll recap as best I can. The ability to conceptualize is definitively human. The makes possible exchange, and the creation of exchange-value in the natural bodies of objects. For any large-scale exchange to be possible, a common denominator, or value per se, must be introduced. This common denominator must be something that all the objects share in common, which is human labour-power. The definition of labour-power is much wider than usually assumed, and is in fact co-terminus with human life. Financial value is human life confronting us in alien form. Financial value must not be confused with price, exchange-value or money, which it usually is.

That's not a proof, that's mere assertion, but I do prove this, meticulously and laboriously, and meeting every single objection raised, in the first half of this thread.

 

[phildwyer]

Blah blah blah, phil.

The point I was addressing was that you mentioned "political parties". The accurate point I made was that such things as political parties as organisations that were financially and ideologically subscribed to didn't exist.

The Levellers meet this definition, as I said much earlier.

 

[phildwyer]

i don't think i'm one of the worked up types, having really only joined in this debate to entertain myself when i should be working... it's not that i do or don't believe in god, i just don't believe that god can be rationally proved to exist. nor do i believe god can be PROVED not to exist. as far as i'm concerned, if god exists that's his or her own business. it's religions i have the problem with, and people whose moral code doesn't come from their experience of the world around them, and least-harm principals, but from the alleged word of gods and prophets - especially when things that they claim is right can be shown to cause harm to individuals or societies uneccessarily.

I agree with you about organized religion. But God *can* be proved, rationally, to exist. I am currently about halfway towards making such a proof, although it seems we are to going to be bogged down in value theory again for a while now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Levellers meet this definition, as I said much earlier.

No you didn't.

Your refutation on page 43 of the thread says nothing on the matter of financial subscription. That the Levellers were "considered" to be the first political party is immaterial to them actually fulfilling the necessary definitional criteria of a political party, as I'm sure you'd understand if you weren't so busy patching the holes in your credibility.

 

[nino_savatte]

he HAS!

he's proved it's possible to witter, and witter at greater length than i'd ever believed possible!

In that case.....

 

[nino_savatte]

The Levellers meet this definition, as I said much earlier.

No they do not.

 

[phildwyer]

No you didn't.

Your refutation on page 43 of the thread says nothing on the matter of financial subscription. That the Levellers were "considered" to be the first political party is immaterial to them actually fulfilling the necessary definitional criteria of a political party, as I'm sure you'd understand if you weren't so busy patching the holes in your credibility.

Anyone reading page 43 would see that I am saying more than that they are "considered" to be the first political party, and that I was in fact claiming that's what they *were.* Which is true, as most people are aware. This is pretty widely known, and almost everyone knows it. The vast majority of people accept this well-known fact. Except you.

 

[phildwyer]

No they do not.

Why not?

 

[slaar]

Well, it might have been better if you'd said this weeks ago when I was actually proving it, but anyway, I'll recap as best I can. The ability to conceptualize is definitively human. The makes possible exchange, and the creation of exchange-value in the natural bodies of objects. For any large-scale exchange to be possible, a common denominator, or value per se, must be introduced. This common denominator must be something that all the objects share in common, which is human labour-power. The definition of labour-power is much wider than usually assumed, and is in fact co-terminus with human life. Financial value is human life confronting us in alien form. Financial value must not be confused with price, exchange-value or money, which it usually is.

That's not a proof, that's mere assertion, but I do prove this, meticulously and laboriously, and meeting every single objection raised, in the first half of this thread.

That definition of Marxist value theory is non-falsifiable. Neoclassical value theory is non falsifiable.

Go figure.

 

[phildwyer]

That definition of Marxist value theory is non-falsifiable. Neoclassical value theory is non falsifiable.

Go figure.

The theory of value I have just outlined falsifies the neoclassical theory by being true.

 

[Pickman's model]

The theory of value I have just outlined falsifies the neoclassical theory by being true.

is it?

define "true".

 

[nino_savatte]

Why not?

Simply because they don't. Political parties only came into being in the early 18th century, possibly the very late 17th. The Levellers while having a particular ideology that was distinct from the rest of the revolutionaries, cannot, in any way, be described as a political party.

Presumably if you regard the Levellers as political party, then you no doubt regard the demes of Byzantium in the same way - no?

 

[Pickman's model]

Simply because they don't. Political parties only came into being in the early 18th century, possibly the very late 17th. The Levellers while having a particular ideology that was distinct from the rest of the revolutionaries, cannot, in any way, be described as a political party.

Presumably if you regard the Levellers as political party, then you no doubt regard the demes of Byzantium in the same way - no?

so you think neale got it wrong when he said that the "puritan choir" in the elizabethan parliaments were an early example of political party?

 

[slaar]

The theory of value I have just outlined falsifies the neoclassical theory by being true.

You can't honestly be trying to say it's impossible to have two different, non-falsifiable explanations of a single complex system? Proving one cannot be falsified doesn't invalidate the other.

 

[nino_savatte]

so you think neale got it wrong when he said that the "puritan choir" in the elizabethan parliaments were an early example of political party?

Yes.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes.

i hoped you'd avoid that little trap!

 

[nino_savatte]

i hoped you'd avoid that little trap!

I wonder what phil has to say on the matter though.

 

[phildwyer]

so you think neale got it wrong when he said that the "puritan choir" in the elizabethan parliaments were an early example of political party?

He's right, except that the Levellers were a secular rather than a religious organization. If we are counting religious organizations--and I actually think we should--then the Presbytarians and the Independents were also political parties in the 1630's.

 

[phildwyer]

You can't honestly be trying to say it's impossible to have two different, non-falsifiable explanations of a single complex system? Proving one cannot be falsified doesn't invalidate the other.

Well then, the onus is on you to prove that neoclassical value theory cannot be falsified, as I have done for the Labour Theory.

 

[gurrier]

The theory of value I have just outlined falsifies the neoclassical theory by being true.

 

[phildwyer]

Well Gurrier, this suprises me more than somewhat. Most Lefties, and all Marxists, accept the Labour Theory of Value. I take it you don't?

 

[slaar]

Well then, the onus is on you to prove that neoclassical value theory cannot be falsified, as I have done for the Labour Theory.

Quite so. The first two paragraphs of p161 in the paper below will do for starters.

http://esnie.u-paris10.fr/pdf/textes_2005/Hodgson_HiddenPersuaders.pdf

 

[phildwyer]

Quite so. The first two paragraphs of p161 in the paper below will do for starters.

http://esnie.u-paris10.fr/pdf/textes_2005/Hodgson_HiddenPersuaders.pdf

That's not a theory of value at all, its a theory of human behaviour, and a transparantly ideological one at that. Basically (and the Darwinian overtones are quiet clear) it claims that everything human beings do is always calculated to maximize utility to themselves. Gary Becker, who seems to be the main theorist discussed here, has even written a notorious book, Treatise on the Family, in which he reduces *love* to this basely self-interested level. I find this absolutely horrible stuff, as well as ridiculous, and it obviously functions (I would argue that it is intended) as a rationalization of the marketplace. But in any case, it has nothing to say on the question of what value *is,* what is its *substance.*

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anyone reading page 43 would see that I am saying more than that they are "considered" to be the first political party, and that I was in fact claiming that's what they *were.* Which is true, as most people are aware. This is pretty widely known, and almost everyone knows it. The vast majority of people accept this well-known fact. Except you.

Nice hypothesis, but that's all it is.

Stating your so-called "well-known fact" proves nothing.

Much like so many of your "statements", all you've done is regurgitated a previously-stated (by some more eminent and worthy than yourself) opinion and claimed it as your own.

If indeed I am the only person who doesn't know this fact then it should be simple for you to prove it.

Except you won't be able to, because however you dress it up you're voicing an opinion, a value-laden interpretation based on your assumption of what constituted a "political party" at that time without your having defined, with historical evidence, what did indeed constitute a "political party" at that time.

I await your next gust of bluster with great interest. I'll be even more interested if you can produce evidence to substantiate your claim.

 

[ViolentPanda]

so you think neale got it wrong when he said that the "puritan choir" in the elizabethan parliaments were an early example of political party?

If you're referring to J.E. Neale perhaps he was expressing an informed opinion based on a "modern-day" understanding of what constitutes a "political party"?

I don't know which (if it is he) of his works you cited the quote from so I don't know the context in which he made the comment (I only have "Queen Elizabeth the First").

 

[slaar]

That's not a theory of value at all, its a theory of human behaviour, and a transparantly ideological one at that. Basically (and the Darwinian overtones are quiet clear) it claims that everything human beings do is always calculated to maximize utility to themselves. Gary Becker, who seems to be the main theorist discussed here, has even written a notorious book, Treatise on the Family, in which he reduces *love* to this basely self-interested level. I find this absolutely horrible stuff, as well as ridiculous, and it obviously functions (I would argue that it is intended) as a rationalization of the marketplace. But in any case, it has nothing to say on the question of what value *is,* what is its *substance.*

Of course it's a theory of value as well as of behaviour, value that objects have emerging from the rational maximisation of human preferences in the same way Marxist theory suggests value comes from embodied labour power.

I'm well aware of Becker's work having been subjected to it at university, and probably hold him in as much contempt as you do, but it is a theory of value, and it is not falsifiable.

 

[phildwyer]

Nice hypothesis, but that's all it is.

Stating your so-called "well-known fact" proves nothing.

Much like so many of your "statements", all you've done is regurgitated a previously-stated (by some more eminent and worthy than yourself) opinion and claimed it as your own.

Now I must take exception to this, Panda. I've never claimed that any of the ideas I discuss on this thread are my own. But the point of this thread is to prove God's existence *without* just referring to authorities. I even debated whether or not to respond to Slaar's reference above on these grounds: eventually I decided to cut him some slack, but it would have been better if he'd tried to prove neoclassical value theory in his own words.

Anyway, the source for the argument that the Levellers were the first political party is, of course, Christopher Hill's The World Turned Upside Down.

More generally, I must say that I've been amused at the incredulity expressed by Gurrier and other self-proclaimed Leftists with regard to the ideas I've discussed here. As some have been smart enough to notice, these ideas are hardly new, and large parts of my proof so far have been little more than a summary of the first chapter of Capital. That most basic principle of socialism, the Labour Theory of Value, has been greeted with hoots of derision by several people who describe themselves as socialists. We can only conclude that Gurrier and others have simply never read the basic texts of their movements. No surprises there, I know, but it rare that they reveal their ignorance so publically.