The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[Brainaddict]

Well, I will pause there to make sure that everyone is satisfied.

Satisfied? More than satisfied I'd say. This is the best entertainment I've had for ages

I really hope this thread comes back to haunt you when you reach the ripe old age of 21

 

[trashpony]

I take your point, but the problem is that I would actually like to arrive at my proof sometime this year. At some stage one has to conclude that anyone who still does not grasp a particular point is simply incapable of doing so.

So you concede that I have a point in questioning your inability to address genuine flaws in your argument but then go on to say that the people that point out these gaping holes are, in fact, too stupid to follow your argument. Whereas IMO they are in fact bright enough to realise how utterly specious your argument actually is.

I'm also a bit disappointed you haven't shared with us what you had for lunch today but do carry on.

 

[phildwyer]

So you concede that I have a point in questioning your inability to address genuine flaws in your argument but then go on to say that the people that point out these gaping holes are, in fact, too stupid to follow your argument. Whereas IMO they are in fact bright enough to realise how utterly specious your argument actually is.

I'm also a bit disappointed you haven't shared with us what you had for lunch today but do carry on.

Breakfast, and I had something called a "power sandwich." Please understand that I will take the time to answer every objection *within reason.* I have to add this qualification because, as you can see for yourself, certain stalkers have infested this thread, and they will doubtless continue to raise pointless cavils even when all reasonable people are convinced, so determined are they to thwart the progress of truth. In any case, no matter the pace at which I proceed, some will be disappointed. There are those who are chomping at the bit to get on with the argument, but there are others who have not yet grasped all of the initial stages. On balance, the latter probably exceed the former at present, so I shall make a pause here for them to catch up. If you are among them, kindly ask your question, and I will answer it, as I have answered the others.

 

[kyser_soze]

and I had something called a "power sandwich."

You bought a Pret Half Sandwich didn't you?

 

[Brainaddict]

certain stalkers have infested this thread, and they will doubtless continue to raise pointless cavils even when all reasonable people are convinced, so determined are they to thwart the progress of truth.

ROFPML

 

[phildwyer]

You bought a Pret Half Sandwich didn't you?

Never heard of it.

 

[trashpony]

Please understand that I will take the time to answer every objection *within reason.* I have to add this qualification because, as you can see for yourself, certain stalkers have infested this thread, and they will doubtless continue to raise pointless cavils even when all reasonable people are convinced, so determined are they to thwart the progress of truth. Kindly ask your question, and I will answer it, as I have answered the others.

Ah - I see what you're doing there. If I ask a question that you can't answer, then I'm pointlessly thwarting the progress of truth (nice turn of phrase BTW). If you can, then I'm a reasonable person who is convinced of the veracity of your argument.

Just so we're clear. Do carry on - empowered by your 'power sandwich'.

 

[Fruitloop]

It is not necessary for my argument to show that every human transfer of property is an example of commodity exchange. All I need to demonstrate is that the *concept* of exchange, of equivalence, is a definitive characteristic of the human mind. This is one manifestation of the human ability to *conceptualize* (again, language is the other). In other words, human beings always and inevitably impose their own *concepts* on the world. We do not see the same tree that a dog sees, because when we see the physical tree, we also see the *concept* of a tree. Unlike the dog, we recognize the tree as a single instance of a general concept, and this determines how the tree appears to us.

Then how is it that pigeons can be trained to discriminate between Picasso and Monet paintings? Or between photos that have people or trees in them or not? Animals are poor at truly abstract categorisation, but then so are most people.

I still don't see how you can assert that 'the *concept* of exchange, of equivalence, is a definitive characteristic of the human mind' (which seems weaker than the original statement in post #1) since as I've pointed out 'value' (which is to preference as 'length' or 'breadth' are to extension) can exist prior to exchange in any case. However, I will await the remaining casuistry before passing judgement.

It seems that you subscribe to a capitalist, neoclassical, market theory of value, since you say that value derives from the sum of the "self-maximizing choices" of individuals. I don’t agree (and I’d point again to the revealing similarities between your theory and the Darwinist theory of evolution.) But this is of no importance, since the theory of value I am about to outline will incorporate yours.

No, I said that value derives from the sum of choices made on the basis of individual preferences, which are self-maximising under the conditions of bounded rationality; and I still don't see what it has to do with Darwin.

 

[gurrier]

Ah - I see what you're doing there. If I ask a question that you can't answer, then I'm pointlessly thwarting the progress of truth (nice turn of phrase BTW). If you can, then I'm a reasonable person who is convinced of the veracity of your argument.

Oh, I thought you were one of us (the brotherhood of fanatic atheists against the progress of truth). Do you want to sign up? It's not a bad gig, although satan (our lord and master) can be a bit of a tough boss sometimes.

Against truth! Against the obvious rationality and logic of all-powerful creators unsupported by evidence!
For science and blind faith in objectivity, scientific method, testable hypotheses and disprovability!

I don't think the rest of you realise the seriousness of the situation. Only phil himself and the members of the brotherhood (we are many on this thread) realise that phil is the second coming. An international action alert has been sent out to our acolytes in university science departments all over the world and we are flocking to this thread to halt the progress of truth. We must stop him from revealing the ultimate truth of his divinity! Join us or face an infinity of paradise!

 

[Doomsy]

GURRIER: Have you no pride? For the third time, I inform you that you are not welcome on this thread. You have made it abundantly clear that your only purpose is to derail discussion with your bitter jibes and savage mockery. You are like a drunken gatecrasher who refuses to leave the party. There’s nothing for you here. Go home.

And of course I will have to pause periodically to kick away Gurrier, Nino Savatte and the rest of the pack of mangy curs who have nothing better to do than yap at my heels all day. Many on these boards are fanatical anti-theists, and convincing them will not be easy. But I shoulder the task with goodwill

Consistent as a strobe light there, phil...

 

[118118]

I think it would be very silly to argue that most people can make conceptualizations or categories. For example I clearly can:
Badgers and dogs are alike, because they both have four legs.
Simple. Whether or not all humans have this ability, and whether they are involved in all perceptions, I don't think you've shown.
The ontological arguement is

 

[kyser_soze]

I think it would be very silly to argue that most people can make conceptualizations or categories. For example I clearly can:
Badgers and dogs are alike, because they both have four legs.
Simple. Whether or not all humans have this ability, and whether they are involved in all perceptions, I don't think you've shown.
The ontological arguement is

Just so I';m first to do it...

GOT YOUR NUMBER!!

*gets coat*

 

[118118]

Shit, I didn't think of that.
lol

 

[In Bloom]

I think it would be very silly to argue that most people can make conceptualizations or categories. For example I clearly can:
Badgers and dogs are alike, because they both have four legs.
Simple. Whether or not all humans have this ability, and whether they are involved in all perceptions, I don't think you've shown.
The ontological arguement is

Or shit, depending on whether you've got an ounce of sense

 

[montevideo]

You can imagine a man stranded at birth alone on an island, with only a cow and a sheep for company. Imagine a sudden storm ensues, and the man knows that in a couple of minutes the rainwater will sweep down from the hills and wash away his animals. He only has time to save one - either the sheep in the pen at the back of the house or the cow in the field in front.

This man will be able to make an evaluative judgement between the cow and the sheep even though he could have had no experience of exchange as Marx understood it. He would also be able to make enumerative judgements (i.e. if there were one cow but four sheep, or 2 cows and seven sheep then the choice would vary). So in this instance the man would be able to make a boundedly rational choice based on his preferences without needing any 'value' arising from 'exchange'.

You can understand the evaluation of all commodities, whether or not they instantiate social labour, as the sum of the set of boundedly self-maximising choices of all the individual actors, without needing to deify exchange as the sole basis of human interaction (which is a social fallacy anyway - what about kinship etc?). Neither do you need to create a ghostly 'value' that in reality has no more tangible existence than centimeters do as a unit of length - in fact surely it would be possible to make a similar argument that 'centimeters' and 'inches' magically come into existence only when man starts to understand the concepts of 'longer', 'shorter', etc, a hypothesis that is as self-evident as it is pointless.

Indeed, or numbers in general; universally accepted, abstract concept, numbers are purely the creation of man. As opposed to amounts which surely exist within nature regardless. Explaining amounts, or rather defining amounts, is therefore something we need to consider before we move forward? Do amounts, can amounts, exist without exchange? As in when a pack of carnivores hunt? Are they aware of amounts (as it were, mass) of the herd they are about to attack, can we ever know? Is quantification as aspect we need to consider?

 

[Addy]

Indeed god does exist.
I met hime once, a few years back.
It was about 3am, i was out fishing when i saw the bright light.
At first i thought it was a balif or gamekeeper with a torch, until i was levitated by that strange forcefield.
..here we go again i thought, tin foil hats and anal probes
This time it was different, i was welcomed by the visitors with a kind of awe.
Then the big guy appeared and greeted me.
He showed me a picture, and within that picture was another picture, and guess what? within that picture was another...etc
Then he placed thee picture under a sort of microscope and willed me to look.
I saw the picture moving, it was people and animals.
I hit the next zoom level and saw within those beings, more bodies moving around and doing their thing.
I zoomed again, and saw the same again....etc
The big guy laughed at me and revealed the plans of the experiment that was EARTH.
Then he showed me the plans of experiment universe..
Then i woke to the sound of my bite alarm, only to find i had hooked a minow.
It put my life into perspective that night.
I dont go fishing any more.
Nice thread

 

[revol68]

i thought marxs whole point was to move away from metaphysical shite which trys to find a primordal defining characteristic of man.

Can the ATF storm binary code?

This thread has gone Waco.

 

[exosculate]

* 100 at this thread.

Waits for Phil to start attempting to sell copies of The Watchtower.

 

[trashpony]

I'm worried he's gone and isn't coming back. He promised the next instalment today and he hasn't delivered.

I want to know what happens in the end of the story!

 

[Jo/Joe]

I still want to know if you are talking about the existance of god as an entity outside of the human mind.

 

[Brainaddict]

I'm worried he's gone and isn't coming back. He promised the next instalment today and he hasn't delivered.

I want to know what happens in the end of the story!

I'd like to think he's gone away to revise his arguments, but I seriously doubt it

 

[trashpony]

I'd like to think he's gone away to revise his arguments, but I seriously doubt it

Or just trying to figure out a way out of the huge hole he's just dug himself ...

Nah, that's not very likely either. I reckon it was down to his power sandwich - if he'd stuck to sausage sarnies, he'd be on a roll by now

 

[Addy]

if he'd stuck to sausage sarnies, he'd be on a roll by now

Would that then be a sausage roll?
or would it be that 'to roll' is an action, and that is not a concept of exchange?

I'm talking bollox here, my first post is true though.

 

[parallelepipete]

Post #1: The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange. Yes, exchange.

Post #149 I agree that “communication” is the definitive characteristic of human society. At a later stage, I will be arguing that exchange is a form of communication, although not the only one (the other is language, broadly defined.) I am constructing a more capacious definition of “communication” than you may be used to.

Exchange = 'Definitive characteristic of human society'

Communication = 'Definitive characteristic of human society'

Since both 'Communication' (C) and 'Exchange' (E) are identical to 'Definitive characteristic of human society', then both are identical to each other:

C = E

Also, from #149, Language (denoted L) is a subset of C, so

(L AND NOT C) = empty

Since C = E, it also follows that

(L AND NOT E) = empty

From #149, E and L are the two mutually exclusive subsets of communication,

i.e. (E AND L) = empty

Since C = E, it also follows that

(C AND L) = empty

Therefore the set L = empty.

In other words, language does not exist, and you'd better all give up now.

Q.E.D.

 

[exosculate]

I'm tempted to start a thread called :

The rational proof of Phildwyers existence.

 

[parallelepipete]

I'm tempted to start a thread called :

The rational proof of Phildwyers existence.

Or 'The existence of a proof of Phildwyer's rationality'?

 

[exosculate]

Or 'The existence of a proof of Phildwyer's rationality'?

How about Phildwyer thinks therefore God exists.

If we can only refute Phils existence I think we will have refuted God.

 

[parallelepipete]

How about Phildwyer thinks therefore God exists.

If we can only refute Phils existence I think we will have refuted God.

Right people, let's get to it!

*imagines himself as Ed Harris in 'Apollo 13'*

 

[TeeJay]

Never heard of it.

You claim you are from the UK yet you say you have never heard of a Pret half sandwich?

You a complete fraud aren't you?

I bet you aren't Welsh either.

 

[TeeJay]

Look into the eyes.

What do you see?