The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[parallelepipete]

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.

Then surely a god who rewards faith in him/her/it would not have much respect for you? Which religions have gods which say "blessed are the sceptical, for they shall prove my existence"?

 

[Lord Almighty]

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.

The one who speaks as phildwyer has forked tongue (and a rather embarrasing condition of IBS). My wrath shall be reserved for him.

 

[parallelepipete]

so while we're waiting

Proof that God hates veggies? But slaughter a lamb and you're in with old YHWH (or YWHW or YWCA or whatever)?

 

[parallelepipete]

The one who speaks as phildwyer has forked tongue (and a rather embarrasing condition of IBS). My wrath shall be reserved for him.

hi LA, welcome to hell, have some brimstone and don't lend Dub a burning brand!

*realises who he's talking to*

*queues up dolefully on LA's left-hand side*

*(y'know, along with the goats)*

 

[gurrier]

The one who speaks as phildwyer has forked tongue (and a rather embarrasing condition of IBS). My wrath shall be reserved for him.

Do the rest of us get some carbonara?

* licks lips *

By your carbonara we shall know you, oh noodly one.

* bows head *

 

[nino_savatte]

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?

I asked you earlier in this thread if you were a Xtian or were in any way religious. Here in this post you admit, in not so many words, that you are. How do I know this? You have made the claim that I find "God repugnant"...those were not my words, rather the words you imagined I said. You are a Xtian and your understanding of "God" is based on your own cultural position. Now then, spend some time chewing that one over.

You are not only a raving egomaniac but you are a bald-faced liar as well.

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

Nonsense. I don't need 'faith' to declare "God" an imaginary construct. On the contrary I have both reason and logic at my disposal and both have led me to that conclusion. You, on the other hand, are a religious nutter masquerading as an academic...and you have not provided any proof, only supposition.

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

Desperate for allies in your non-argument, you resort to the time-honoured tactic of smearing your opponent. Here you cast apersions on both my reading and my intelligence. But you have absolutely no right to do this, since much of what you have posted here is a regurgitation of what others have said. If I were you I would look at the replies of other posters...they are not as complimentary of you as you think.

You lost the moment you started this thread.

 

[goldenecitrone]

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.

If only we could have stuck to barter, everything would have been fine and dandy. Does anyone want to swap me a handful of beans for this lovely old cow? Please.

 

[nino_savatte]

"Financial value is Satan"....now I've heard everything.

 

[phildwyer]

Very well. We have pretty much etsablished what financial value is and, although some of you are still worried about the terminology, we have basically agreed that it is not an "idea," much less a "thing," and that the English word most closely approximating to it is "spirit." We will now move to consider the nature of this spirit.

The first thing to note is that it only comes into being about four hundred years ago. Before that, prohibitions against usury had largely ensured that financial value could not reproduce on its own, and so could not become an independent force. Most people did not even recognize its existence, and it was to all intents and purposes equated with money.

That all changed with the discovery of America. The consequent influx of precious metals into Europe caused massive and unprecedented inflation. Governments responded with deflations--or "debasements" as they were called--of the coinage. The *value* of gold fluctuated visibly from year to year. So people came to understand that financial value was not somehow "in" the material body of the gold, but was an independent and nonmaterial force. The recognition of this force coincided with the emergence onto the historical stage of the figure known to us as "Satan."

We must understand that, although the concept and the word "Satan" have existed since Biblical times, our modern understanding of this figure is very recent. In fact, medieval authors are largely ignorant of Satan's existence, and they refer more often to "Lucifer," the morning star, which represents an angel expelled from heaven by God. But the emergence of financial value as an independent force produced a sudden outburst of interest in the Satanic. The craze for "Teufelbucher" in Germany and the European-wide witch hunts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries testify to a rapid, panicky realization that Satan was at work in the world. This is an entirely new phenomenon.

Of course, the fact that Satan and financial value are both recognized at the same time does not, in itself, suggest an identity between them. To establish this identity we need to examine their natures, and we will now return to the characteristics of financial value that we identified earlier. First, consider the fact that it is human life confronting us in alien form. It is our subjective activity in objective guise. It is the *opposite,* the dialectical *antithesis* of human life. All of this is uncontroversial.

Now, the Hebrew word "Satan" has various connotations, but let us consider the most prevelent one first: "enemy," or "adversary." Satan is an *enemy.* Whose enemy is he? Perhaps God's? But this is absurd: God is omnipotent, He does not have "enemies," in in fact everything that happens, including things that we regard as "evil" are done by God. Satan, I contend, is the "enemy," the "opponent" of each individual *human* being. he is the force that seeks to destroy human life, and the means by which he does so is death. Death is the *objectification* of a human being, it is the condition of humanity devoid of subjectivity. A dead body is an object without a subject.

Well, I've probably given you quite a lot to chew on here, so I'll pause for a while. I want to spend some time making fun of Nino too. But I promise that I will answer any questions, and refute any objections to the above, in due course.

 

[nino_savatte]

Satan didn't exist until he was invented and if memory serves me correctly, Satan does not exist in Judaism.

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by the man with an ego the size of Canada
Well, I've probably given you quite a lot to chew on here, so I'll pause for a while. I want to spend some time making fun of Nino too. But I promise that I will answer any questions, and refute any objections to the above, in due course.

Perhaps in your head, phil. But from what I can see I'm not the only one taking the piss out of you...or are you too [selectively] blind to notice?

Come on, let's see what you've got you silly wee troll.

 

[phildwyer]

"Financial value is Satan"....now I've heard everything.

Nino, you agenda is becoming ever more prevelent here. In fact, your agenda trails in the dust behind you as you plod your weary way. Conceal it as you might, your agenda is visible to all. And a most unpleasant, a most stinking, reeking agenda it is. It is the agenda of one who hates God. As soon as you arrived on this thread, you announced your detetstation of God, and your ruthless determination to do everything you could to bring Him down. You struggle against God, feebly but persistantly, by dogging this thread with your dour, grim efforts at sarcasm, and your dull, impotent jibes against Truth. I wouldn't even mind if you enlivened your efforts with some of your amusing trademarks, your leitmotifs--repeatedly asking us if we have read Foucault, for example, or flagging your efforts at sarcasm with "I *don't* think." But recently you have deprived us of even these solaces. Spice it up man, give us the *old* Nino, the one who made us *laugh.* No, seriously, have you ever read Foucault? Because you seem quite knowledgeable on the subject--I *don't* think!

 

[phildwyer]

Satan didn't exist until he was invented and if memory serves me correctly, Satan does not exist in Judaism.

Fool and ignoramus. Satan does exist in Judaism. At least do us the courtesy of Googling before you post your efforts.

 

[robotsimon]

.That all changed with the discovery of America. The consequent influx of precious metals into Europe caused massive and unprecedented inflation. Governments responded with deflations--or "debasements" as they were called--of the coinage. The *value* of gold fluctuated visibly from year to year. So people came to understand that financial value was not somehow "in" the material body of the gold, but was an independent and nonmaterial force. The recognition of this force coincided with the emergence onto the historical stage of the figure known to us as "Satan."

I do not feel qualified to argue with you on philosophical matters but, again, you are playing free and easy with the facts. The concept of financial value being independent of the physical material of coinage dates from much further back than four hundred years.

The antoninianus introduced by Caracalla in the early 3rd century CE was valued twice as much as the denarius yet never contained more than 1.6 times as much silver. Debasement of coinage has occurred at least since 2nd century CE. Later in the third century, the antoninianus was debased further with the addition of tin and copper so they looked a bit like silver yet contained very little or even none.

 

[nino_savatte]

Fool and ignoramus. Satan does exist in Judaism. At least do us the courtesy of Googling before you post your efforts.

"Fool and ignoramus"...is that the best you can come up with? An academician like you?

You're nothing but a cheap troll.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino, you agenda is becoming ever more prevelent here. In fact, your agenda trails in the dust behind you as you plod your weary way. Conceal it as you might, your agenda is visible to all. And a most unpleasant, a most stinking, reeking agenda it is. It is the agenda of one who hates God. As soon as you arrived on this thread, you announced your detetstation of God, and your ruthless determination to do everything you could to bring Him down. You struggle against God, feebly but persistantly, by dogging this thread with your dour, grim efforts at sarcasm, and your dull, impotent jibes against Truth. I wouldn't even mind if you enlivened your efforts with some of your amusing trademarks, your leitmotifs--repeatedly asking us if we have read Foucault, for example, or flagging your efforts at sarcasm with "I *don't* think." But recently you have deprived us of even these solaces. Spice it up man, give us the *old* Nino, the one who made us *laugh.* No, seriously, have you ever read Foucault? Because you seem quite knowledgeable on the subject--I *don't* think!

No, phil, you are projecting again: it is obvious what your agenda is here: to wind up posters with your nonsense (because that is what it is) and attack others with whom you have a personal vendetta. Your masturbatory threads serve only one purpose: to boost you enormous and empty ego.

This statement proves that you are a troll.

You struggle against God, feebly but persistantly, by dogging this thread with your dour, grim efforts at sarcasm, and your dull, impotent jibes against Truth.

What a strange universe you inhabit. "Truth"? You wouldn't know it if it came up and kicked you in the balls (assuming you have balls that is). "Struggle against God"...how can one struggle against something that was invented by religious leaders and is not believed by the person you are hruling abuse at?

Your attempts at witty comebacks are not only feeble but reveal the true state of your mental condition. You need help, go and get some.

 

[gurrier]

Very well. We have pretty much etsablished what financial value is and, although some of you are still worried about the terminology, we have basically agreed that it is not an "idea," much less a "thing," and that the English word most closely approximating to it is "spirit." We will now move to consider the nature of this spirit.

Breathtaking. Phil, my reading of the responses suggests that the audience has basically agreed that you are fucking hatstand and not much else beyond.

The first thing to note is that it only comes into being about four hundred years ago. Before that, prohibitions against usury had largely ensured that financial value could not reproduce on its own, and so could not become an independent force. Most people did not even recognize its existence, and it was to all intents and purposes equated with money.

I refer you to the Laws of Draco, Athens 621 B.C which forced bad debtors to become slaves to their creditors and, despite the various anti-usury rants by philosophers, it is clear that it was common practice in ancient athens.

That all changed with the discovery of America. The consequent influx of precious metals into Europe caused massive and unprecedented inflation. Governments responded with deflations--or "debasements" as they were called--of the coinage. The *value* of gold fluctuated visibly from year to year. So people came to understand that financial value was not somehow "in" the material body of the gold, but was an independent and nonmaterial force. The recognition of this force coincided with the emergence onto the historical stage of the figure known to us as "Satan."

That's just rubbish, ahistorical and made up to suit your conclusion. The value of currency tokens has always fluctuated, whether salt, cowrie shells, guns or gold.

I refer you to Mansa Musa's pilgrimage to mecca in the early 14th century, after which it was widely reported across the Muslim world that it took the price of gold 12 years to recover in Cairo after his splurge while passing through, showing that not only did the value of gold fluctuate long before the 'discovery' of America, but that the concept was well known and accepted throughout society (this story circulated as a popular myth of his wealth and splendour).

 

[angry bob]

Nonsense. I don't need 'faith' to declare "God" an imaginary construct. On the contrary I have both reason and logic at my disposal and both have led me to that conclusion.

Perhaps you could start a thread using a reasonable and logical argument to disprove the existence of god? Without resorting to 'if you can't prove there is then there isn't' of course ... which I find a pretty weak argument.

You, on the other hand, are a religious nutter masquerading as an academic....

Desperate for allies in your non-argument, you resort to the time-honoured tactic of smearing your opponent. Here you cast apersions on both my reading and my intelligence. But you have absolutely no right to do this ...

 

[Fruitloop]

First, consider the fact that it is human life confronting us in alien form. It is our subjective activity in objective guise. It is the *opposite,* the dialectical *antithesis* of human life. All of this is uncontroversial.

Uncontroversial?!? It's rubbish, Phil, rubbish.

As for there being no enthusiasm for Satan in the medieval period, that's rubbish as well. A quick search of the Patrologia Latina (which comprises the works of the Church Fathers from Tertullian in 200 AD to the death of Pope Innocent III in 1216) reveals 816 references to Satan, and that's not counting spelling variations or declension. Where on earth are you getting this stuff?

 

[nino_savatte]

Perhaps you could start a thread using a reasonable and logical argument to disprove the existence of god? Without resorting to 'if you can't prove there is then there isn't' of course ... which I find a pretty weak argument.

Don't roll your eyes at me pal. I don't need to 'disprove' anything...at least not for your satisfaction.

So you think phil has provided us all with 'proof' then?

 

[slaar]

This is all looking pretty tenuous, even before discussing the fact that the proof isn't sound up to talk of Satan.

 

[phildwyer]

Where on earth are you getting this stuff?

Unfortunately, just as this discussion is really getting interesting, I'm going to be away from my copmupter for at least two days. I do promise, though, to answer everyone's objections, both to my history of Satan and my description of financial value, as well as my equation of the two. But I just had to answer Fruitloop's query, becasue I really want to plug my source here. In my opinion, there is *only* one serious historical study of the devil in English: Jeffrey Burton Russell's absolutely stunning, magisterial, comprehensive and brilliant five-volume analysis. Its divided into volumes on The Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Mephistopheles and The Prince of Darkness. Burton is an *astonishing* historian, and everyone should read these books (although they total several thousand pages). Everyone, that is, except Nino, who must stick to Foucault for a while. Catch y'all later.

 

[slaar]

Phil you really need to consider quite how subjective this "proof" is, all the way along. Rational it ain't; perhaps a new thread title is required.

 

[angry bob]

Don't roll your eyes at me pal. I don't need to 'disprove' anything...at least not for your satisfaction.

So you think phil has provided us all with 'proof' then?

No not at all pal. I'm still waiting but I'm finding it quite interesting.

It's just that you seem to be laying into the guy with some venom and I find it hard to tell why. You also claim the very idea of there being a god to be ridiculous (not in as many words perhaps) and was invented by religious leaders (although presumably they only became religious leaders after they invented god?).

You claim that you arrived at this conclusion through logical and reasoned thought on the subject rather than simply believing your position to be correct (i.e. having faith).

It just seemed to me that the best way for you to support your assertations (rather than just calling phil names) would be to share some of your logical and reasoned arguments, thereby showing phil to be wrong.

I don't suggest you do any of this for my satisfaction though but.

Apologies for the rolleyes ... but it did seem rather off for you to accuse phil of smear tactics when you are using little but. Drawing into question his religion, mental capacity and the existence of his testicles to name but a few.

 

[nino_savatte]

No not at all pal. I'm still waiting but I'm finding it quite interesting.

It's just that you seem to be laying into the guy with some venom and I find it hard to tell why. You also claim the very idea of there being a god to be ridiculous (not in as many words perhaps) and was invented by religious leaders (although presumably they only became religious leaders after they invented god?).

You claim that you arrived at this conclusion through logical and reasoned thought on the subject rather than simply believing your position to be correct (i.e. having faith).

It just seemed to me that the best way for you to support your assertations (rather than just calling phil names) would be to share some of your logical and reasoned arguments, thereby showing phil to be wrong.

I don't suggest you do any of this for my satisfaction though but.

Apologies for the rolleyes ... but it did seem rather off for you to accuse phil of smear tactics when you are using little but. Drawing into question his religion, mental capacity and the existence of his testicles to name but a few.

You've simply assumed this is a case of me being 'nasty' to phil but you haven't seen the way the fucker has stalked me all over these boards and selectivised his attacks. The man has a serious mental health problem that isn't confined to his egotism. Like all troll he has a sociopathic streak running through him. If you think you can engage him in a proper discussion, then be my guest.

I found much of what he has said here to be complete and utter nonsense and so have many others...but as far as you are concerned all I am doing is attacking him for no reason. I would suggest you actually look at the rest of this thread before you pass judgement on me.

 

[Fruitloop]

Angry Bob: I think the vitriol is directed at the idea that there exists a rational proof of God's existence, and the only reason for its limited currency is that the majority of people are simply too dim or too ill-read to understand it. Normally I would recommend that you read the entire thread before joining in, but unless you're presently trapped in an iron lung I'm confident there are many more worthwhile things you could be doing with your time.

 

[phildwyer]

No not at all pal. I'm still waiting but I'm finding it quite interesting.

It's just that you seem to be laying into the guy with some venom and I find it hard to tell why. You also claim the very idea of there being a god to be ridiculous (not in as many words perhaps) and was invented by religious leaders (although presumably they only became religious leaders after they invented god?).

You claim that you arrived at this conclusion through logical and reasoned thought on the subject rather than simply believing your position to be correct (i.e. having faith).

It just seemed to me that the best way for you to support your assertations (rather than just calling phil names) would be to share some of your logical and reasoned arguments, thereby showing phil to be wrong.

I don't suggest you do any of this for my satisfaction though but.

Apologies for the rolleyes ... but it did seem rather off for you to accuse phil of smear tactics when you are using little but. Drawing into question his religion, mental capacity and the existence of his testicles to name but a few.

Thanks Bob. But to be honest, the hostility that this subject attracts does not surprise me. In fact, that hostility is itself an element in my proof. If people *really* didn't believe in God, they wouldn't get so het up when someone makes a serious argument for His existence. It is very revealing to find that people like Gurrier and Nino, who simply haven't ever thought about the question seriously (and I really don't mean to be insulting here, just accurate) get visibly, viscerally and instinctively *angry* when someone who does know something about theology makes what is actually a quite mild, rational case for God. Why do they *care* so much, if they really don't believe?

I hope to answer this question in the course of my argument. For now though (and I am sure I'll be loudly insulted for name-dropping here), I'll repeat an anecdote I've told before. I once asked the philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard--a materialist by most people's standards--whether he believed in God. He looked surprised at the question, and replied, as if it were obvious: "but *everyone* believes in God!" I think that's profoundly true, and my aim here is to show everyone that they *already* believe. Anyway, like I say, I must be off now, but I will return!

 

[nino_savatte]

I once asked the philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard

Really? I suppose you spoke to Kant while you were there too.