The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[phildwyer]

How am I expressing "faith" when I have no faith in what is an imaginary construct?

You miss the point. Your belief that God is an "imaginary construct" is based on faith, not reason. You have never even begun to look into the matter, you feel that its is not necessary for you to do so, because you already "know" the correct answer. That is an absolutely *pathetic* and reprehensible attitude to bring to any question.

 

[phildwyer]

I wonder what Phil thinks off all the people throughout history who have believed in God(s) and yet have not acquired their belief through his proof.

Mine is, of course, not the only proof of God's existence. In fact, any proof of anything must change with history and culture. I base my argument firmly on our current social and economic conditions, as have those who have argued most convincingly for God in past ages. But I have little respect for those--in any age--whose religion is based on "faith," just as I have little respect for those whose atheism is based on the same grounds.

 

[phildwyer]

I've just had an idea: perhaps I should start a thread entitled "The rational proof of the existence of Father Xmas/Kris Kringle/Santa Claus".

The fact that you imagine God to be an empirical being of the same order as Father Xmas is the best possible testimony to your complete and utter ignorance of the subject. This is obviously something about which you know nothing--and I do mean *nothing.* In fact, I doubt that you would even deny this. How you get the gall to pronounce so confidently on a topic about which you know absolutely nothing is quite beyond me.

 

[phildwyer]

The only reason why people find it necessary to think deeply about the (in)existence of God is that human society is so saturated with various forms of religion that to actively be an atheist requires a conscious effort.

On the contrary. As this thread has proved, the Western bourgeoisie is so saturated with automatic and unreflective atheism that to be *religious* requires a conscious effort. The evidence is undeniable. Just read back and see the happy atheists, merrily boasting of their ignorance, blithely comparing God to Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You may be different, but most of these people have obviously never given religion a moment's thought in their entire lives. My point is that someone who has never given religion a moment's thought will, today, inevitably turn out an atheist. As I said, atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie.

 

[phildwyer]

I've read the bible in some detail, and also the Torah. Both are works of substantial literary merit, but I wouldn't set much store by the factual or historical content.

Nor would I. They're not supposed to be read for their "factual or historical content." That's the *first* thing you need to grasp about them. I have no time for Biblical literalists or religious fundamentalists, who I find nearly as contemptible as atheist fundamentalists.

 

[Santino]

On the contrary. As this thread has proved, the Western bourgeoisie is so saturated with automatic and unreflective atheism that to be *religious* requires a conscious effort. The evidence is undeniable. Just read back and see the happy atheists, merrily boasting of their ignorance, blithely comparing God to Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You may be different, but most of these people have obviously never given religion a moment's thought in their entire lives. My point is that someone who has never given religion a moment's thought will, today, inevitably turn out an atheist. As I said, atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie.

This message board does not supply an adequate sample of Western bourgeois society to demonstrate anything. Fact.

 

[robotsimon]

Hey Phildwyer, you seem to have sidestepped the issue of your assertion that atheism is the default position of the bourgeois westerners. I assume this is simply an oversight on your part.

Do you have any evidence to back-up this assertion? Do you have any evidence that the 76% of British people who stated they identified with a religion in the 2001 census are members of the working class?

These are not difficult philosophical issues to address, they are simply matters of statistics. Therefore I'm sure you will be able to reassure us that your assertion about the default position of the western bourgeois is based on evidence and not merely a useful assumption on your part.

 

[phildwyer]

This message board does not supply an adequate sample of Western bourgeois society to demonstrate anything. Fact.

Well, perhaps. But just anecdotally, I've found that the vast majority of middle-class Westerners usually adopt the attitude of Nino Savatte: religion is a load of bollocks, believing in God is like believing in Father Xmas, I know this for sure, I don't need to find out anything about it and, er, that's it. Would it be possible to imagine a more ridiculous approach to anything?

 

[Santino]

Would it be possible to imagine a more ridiculous approach to anything?

I can think of... oh... at least one.

 

[Fruitloop]

In any case, it's a perfectly reasonable approach to Father Christmas, unicorns and the like.

 

[Poi E]

Well done on a successful thread, phil.

 

[nino_savatte]

The fact that you imagine God to be an empirical being of the same order as Father Xmas is the best possible testimony to your complete and utter ignorance of the subject. This is obviously something about which you know nothing--and I do mean *nothing.* In fact, I doubt that you would even deny this. How you get the gall to pronounce so confidently on a topic about which you know absolutely nothing is quite beyond me.

You're a fucking nutter, pal...and I mean that most sincerely. For your own sake you should seek professional help...y'get me?

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, perhaps. But just anecdotally, I've found that the vast majority of middle-class Westerners usually adopt the attitude of Nino Savatte: religion is a load of bollocks, believing in God is like believing in Father Xmas, I know this for sure, I don't need to find out anything about it and, er, that's it. Would it be possible to imagine a more ridiculous approach to anything?

Well, where's your proof O Wise One? You have failed to convince not only me but the vast majority of posters on this thread.

Only you could fail to spot the relationship between God, Father Xmas, the Tooth Fairy or whatever device that has been created to explain the unexplainable; or that which acts as a mechanism of social control.

 

[nino_savatte]

Remind us what "atheism" is again phil...if you please.

 

[Crispy]

Remind us what "atheism" is again phil...if you please.

You'll have to wait for the "theism" answer first!

 

[phildwyer]

Well, where's your proof O Wise One? You have failed to convince not only me but the vast majority of posters on this thread.

Only you could fail to spot the relationship between God, Father Xmas, the Tooth Fairy or whatever device that has been created to explain the unexplainable; or that which acts as a mechanism of social control.

Nino, your agenda on this thread is becoming ever clearer. When you first arrived here, you stated that the idea of God was repugnant to you, and you vowed to use every means at your disposal to prevent a serious discussion taking place. Although you have miserably failed in your aim, you linger on like a bad smell. You have repeatedly failed to contribute anything substantive to the discussion. You simply slump in the corner, muttering your incoherent and humorless complaints to an audience of no-one. I don't think you've been straight with anyone here, and I believe it is time you you left us in peace. There must be other threads on which you can grumble and groan to your heart's content, and perhaps you might even find some people willing to indulge your antics. But your envious, miserable keening has outstayed its welcome here. Kindly pursue your agenda elsewhere from now on. Have you ever read Foucault, by the way?

 

[phildwyer]

Remind us what "atheism" is again phil...if you please.

Sigh. I'm afraid that we may have reached a sad moment. There comes a time in all human endeavour when we are forced to declare that enough is enough. No matter how righteous the cause, no-one can fight a losing battle forever. After a while, the crushing weight of ridicule, and the constant pressure of objections simply become too much to bear. No amount of dedication can consistently overcome an unceasing storm of hostility. Eventually, we have to throw in the towel, admit that our efforts were in vain, and--not to put to fine a point on it--just give up.

I fear that Nino Savatte has now reached that stage. Despite his unrelenting exertions, his unbounded energy and his most strenuous arguments, he has proved unequal to the task of derailing this thread. There now seems to be no prospect of success for him on the horizon. Surely even Nino must now admit defeat and do as he has been advised for far too long: go away. The real problem, I suspect, is that he has not read any Foucault. Since everyone else here has read tons of the stuff, this puts him at a real disadvantage. Nino, I suggest that you retire to your corner and read your way through Foucault's major works. No, make that *all* of Foucault. After you have accomplished this task, you can apply to be re-admitted to this thread, and I am sure that your pleas will find a sympathetic ear.

For the rest of you: I believe that we have now established pretty clearly that financial value accords, in all essential points, with the conventional definition of a "spirit." Any lingering objections should be rasied immediately. After I have disposed of them, I shall move on to a yet more controversial stage of my proof, and demonstrate that financial value is nothing more or less that "Satan," as that term has been understood for the last four hundred years of Western culture.

Now for some seriously spicy Lamb saag.

 

[Pickman's model]

so this is where you bring in milton?

 

[phildwyer]

so this is where you bring in milton?

Yes! You've been paying more attention that you claim, you cheeky little devil.

 

[Pickman's model]

i'll be impress'd if your subsequent posts are in the same heroick metre as milton's verse.

 

[phildwyer]

i'll be impress'd if your subsequent posts are in the same heroick metre as milton's verse.

Did you know that "Paradise Lost" can be sung to the theme tune of "The Flintstones?" Try it!

 

[Pickman's model]

Did you know that "Paradise Lost" can be sung to the theme tune of "The Flintstones?" Try it!

so can the national anthem.

 

[phildwyer]

so can the national anthem.

Nah, doesn't scan.

 

[Pickman's model]

you tried, though!

 

[118118]

I think I get this now.
IMHO if you accept that spirit ideas exist and that unobservables are not real in the way that a scientific realist would argue then its not the worst reasoning in the world to say that fv is the devil.
But these positions are not really accepted today, presumably for a reason. The step from fv being idea to spirit is not exactly 'convincing'. But this thread does seem like a possible argument now.

 

[phildwyer]

I think I get this now.
IMHO if you accept that spirit ideas exist and that unobservables are not real in the way that a scientific realist would argue then its not the worst reasoning in the world to say that fv is the devil.
But these positions are not really accepted today, presumably for a reason. The step from fv being idea to spirit is not exactly 'convincing'. But this thread does seem like a possible argument now.

The terminology is anachronistic, true, and that's clearly what's been confusing people on this thread. But I think its important to reclaim this terminology from the fundamentalists, who certainly have no right to it. It is a real tragedy that the know-nothingism of the unthinking atheists have allowed the right a monopoly on religion, and this is in fact a major reason why Bush and co. can wield such unchallenged power in the world. I regard it as my mission to make religious concepts part of Leftist discourse again, and Satan seems to be the best place to start.

 

[Loki]

Has he got there yet?

 

[phildwyer]

Has he got there yet?

Almost. We're onto Satan now, or will be soon, which is half the battle. It looks like Nino has finally got the message that he's not wanted here, and he is the last of the really objectionable mockers on this thread, so the field is pretty much clear for serious debate now, and we should make rapid progress. Satan always takes a while to do though, so give us a week or two, then we'll move onto the Big Fella.

 

[ZWord]

Is the holy lord here yet?

Coming, eventually, maybe. ...

 

[slaar]

I look forward to the next stage phil, but only for academic (ho ho) interest, as I don't think you've satisfactorily answered objections on the uniqueness of the labour theory of value etc. I will stand unconvinced, but I suspect for the sake of eventually getting to the point it is best if you continue.