The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what, i'm satan now?phildwyer said:
that's the kindest thing anyone's said to me today.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Jo/Joe said:
This depends on what you mean by -establish. As far as I know, to establish that some entity is a member of some other set of entities, you have to show that it has the characteristics normally associated with members of that other set of entities.
As far as I can tell, that's what phil's trying to do, and has done: he's told you the characteristics of things that are identified as spirits, and he's told you the characteristics of financial value, and, well, the onus now seems to be on the rest of you to point out why that doesn't show that money is a spirit, without resorting to arguments like, - spirit to me has never meant the kind of thing that money means to me, so I can't believe they are the same thing,- which though it may be psychologically accurate, doesn't really make any argument.
But as far as I can tell, Jo, despite your shining intellect, you don't really have anything to say on the subject at all, as I think you've made it fairly clear that you don't believe in spirits at all. You've got phil trying to show that financial value, if correctly understood, will be seen to belong in the family of entities correctly designated by the concept -spirit- but, you, you don't believe in spirits, so for you, there aren't any actuallly existing entities correctly designated by the concept, spirit, you can't argue with phil, because, you've got nothing to say to him, as far as you can tell, he's using words that don't mean anything? At least as far as I can tell,
Am I right, or is it more complicated? Do you think "spirit" means anything at all, - do you think it's a coherent concept, that just fails to have any application in "reality", or do you think it's an incoherent concept?
And if by any chance you're humble enough to think that possibly the majority of human beings who've ever lived haven't been talking sheer nonsense when they talked about spirits, i.e. it is a coherent concept, then why don't you engage with the argument, tell us what the concept is, and show why financial value is not a species of spirit?
Its possible that it is a "coherent concept". But yeah, well to me I see no argument for the existence of spirit as a immutable substance. The fact that alot of dead Christians believed in it isn't enough, and believing it "had application to reality" as a basic substance might beg the question for the existence of the devil or God somewhat.ZWord said:
There clearly are coherent arguments for the existence of physical things and mind, I would think that 'spirit' is stretching it a bit.
I've never yet heard an argument for the existence of any "physical" things that seemed plausible to me.
Do you know any? Honestly, I don't believe there are such things as physical things, can you prove that they really exist?
And even if there were, I'm fairly sure you're not going to claim that financial value is a physical thing.
If spirit is a coherent concept, what is the concept?
And if anyone involved in this thread is actually interested in advancing their understanding, then it seems to me that the thing to do is to work out what - -spirit- means, or what it's meant to mean, even if there is no entity that is actuallly spirit, and then see whether what phil calls financial value has the necessary characteristics. As far as I can see, if you do the first, and then financial value turns out to have the necessary characteristics, then people are perfectly justified in claiming it's spirit, and the only reason people would disagree is prejudice. I can see why you might say that calling it spirit is stretching it a bit, the key sticking point might be the issue of mentality?
But as far as I can tell, the issue has hardly been honestly debated here, most people already "knew" that phil was talking bollocks as soon as he started, and the idea of calling money a spirit is so alien, that it doesn't need to considered. That's just my perception of how most people who've contributed seem to operate.
Do you know any? Honestly, I don't believe there are such things as physical things, can you prove that they really exist?
And even if there were, I'm fairly sure you're not going to claim that financial value is a physical thing.
If spirit is a coherent concept, what is the concept?
And if anyone involved in this thread is actually interested in advancing their understanding, then it seems to me that the thing to do is to work out what - -spirit- means, or what it's meant to mean, even if there is no entity that is actuallly spirit, and then see whether what phil calls financial value has the necessary characteristics. As far as I can see, if you do the first, and then financial value turns out to have the necessary characteristics, then people are perfectly justified in claiming it's spirit, and the only reason people would disagree is prejudice. I can see why you might say that calling it spirit is stretching it a bit, the key sticking point might be the issue of mentality?
But as far as I can tell, the issue has hardly been honestly debated here, most people already "knew" that phil was talking bollocks as soon as he started, and the idea of calling money a spirit is so alien, that it doesn't need to considered. That's just my perception of how most people who've contributed seem to operate.
ZWord said:
Aye ZWord, you're quite right. Perhaps its partly my fault for adopting a somewhat arrogant tone as a defense, but I think most people would have done the same, or much worse, if faced with the barrage and blockade of blind, stonewalling rejectionism that has been my lot here. Not that it was unexpected, as I've said, and they're not bad people--society really *is* to blame. Our society indoctrinates especially people of a certain class (let's call them the "bourgeoisie" for shothand) into materialism extremely effectively, and we've seen just how effectively right here. People who've obviously never even considered the issue, and who actively don't *want* to consider it, who find considering it a dreadful strain on their psychological resources, will rally round materialism in *exactly* the same way that people in previous ages, or in other socieites, will rally around religious faiths: with fanaticism, with fervour, and above all with hostility towards those they consider heretics. Its been quite instructive, I must say.
As you say here, Jo/Joe is one example, but he's hardly the worst culprit. I'll single out Nino, again, just because I don't think he really minds, and in fact he probably enjoys it, but he's not the only one either. Nino has repeatedly said (when he can be induced to say *anything* substantive at all) that he doesn't *need* to take my ideas seriously because he *knows* "for a fact"--a phrase he's repeated several times--that God is a fantasy. It would be strange if it weren't so clearly the product of capitalist ideology. I mean, what the *hell* is it about the world that makes anyone think that God's nonexistence is an obvious "fact?" Is it that you can't see, touch or taste God? Well how stupid is that? Very stupid indeed, obviously. And then when it is patiently demonstrated to them that the entire world is *ruled* by financial value, a power that can certainly not be perceived by the senses, they will quibble and cavil endlessly--and I do mean endlessly--and run round in futile circles in their attempts to deny that power's supernatural provenance.
But perhaps the most ludicrous spectacle we've witnessed here has been numerous self-proclaimed "Marxists" ridiculing the most basic ideas of Marx, as expressed in Capital. Now, most of them clearly didn't *know* they were Marx's ideas until I told them so, which is revealing in itself. But the *reason* they didn't know this is yet more instructive: they assumed, in their ignorance, that Marx was a materialist, and therefore that he couldn't possibly have believed that financial value was a supernatural force. This is the legacy of Leninism, as I've explained both here and in print. It fully confirms the argument that Soviet Communism was *not* the opponent of capitalism, but was in fact an allied, supplementary and necessary alibi for capitalist thought. The sight of In Bloom (for whom I actually have a great deal of affection) in total *shock* at being informed that Marx was influenced by Martin Luther is especially pertinant here. He's a bright enough lad, he just didn't *know,* no-one had ever *told* him. I hope that my work will go some way towards remedying this situation.
But its your last paragraph above that really hits the nail on the head. Any atheist is faced with what seems to me the insurmountable task of explaining how the *vast* majority of people who have ever lived--and indeed the vast majority of people living today--have believed in metaphysical categories like God, spirits and so on. Their only recourse, usually, is simply to declare that everyone except Westerners of the last two centuries or so have been stupid, deluded or mad. Well it seems to me that this is *self-evidentally* a ludicrous position to hold, and that the onus of proof is very much on the materialists. And, as we've seen, this is a burden that they are quite incapable of shouldering. Now, as William Blake put it: Enough! Or Too Much!
ZWord said:
To me it seems that a concept must be shown to be real (or valid) before the concepts comparision with a entity can add to our knowldege of the entity. I could create a concept, call it X, whose meaning is in part that it is not perceptable to God, and green . I could then show that because grass is green, it is likely not perceptable to God.
No-one can argue that it isn't part of the meaning of concept X to be invisible to God, because I invented the concept. I am justtified in calling grass concept X because it is green, and is hence justified in saying it is invisible to God.
Do you see what I'm getting at.
So one would need an argument not only that Phil is using the concept correctly - that he is correct in its meaning, but also for the reality or validity of 'spirit'.
Besides, if fv had some of the characterstics of spirit, then it would still not be, conclusively, spirit.
trashpony said:
Hey Trashpony. No, he's not me. You might find it hard to believe, but I'm not the only one. Actually several people (you know who you are) who've been dismissive on this thread have been quite interested in my ideas via PM. Not you though, worse luck. Did you go to Lake Titicaca then?
More like phil posting after a few bongs.trashpony said:
Zword, the big problems with phil's definition of financial value as a spirit are the following:
1) his choice of the defining characteristics of 'a spirit' are arbitrary and chosen to fit his conclusion (for example, even people who believe in spirits don't normally believe that 'malign influence' is a defining characteristic of them).
2) the defining characteristics of his 'spirit' are broad enough to encompass a large number of abstractions
3) he has ignored the fact (pointed out probably hundreds of times with examples and evidence) that financial value can not be modelled as an autonomous agent.
gurrier said:
If possible and applicable, that would mean it will be the financial value of my next pair of glasses that will make them have a certain price?Strewth. Now you put it like that...
* Goes off to change Financial Value's idea, nay its very logos, about the price of a small island in the Caribbean and a boat to get there *
Since the unhappy day that you arrived on this site, you have churned out a steady stream of anti-darwinist propaganda. Your very first post on this section was a woefully ill-informed and fanatical attack on Dawkins, and you have repeatedly gone on about that individual and darwinists in general running scared ad naseum since. Adopting the victim role and going on about the small mindedness of the people who you have been abusing (who are almost all far more intelligent than you are) is really really pathetic.phildwyer said:
I think you are on a recruitment mission for some loopy religious sect. Or maybe it's just your supernaturally large ego (which is the only supernatural entity that has been proved on this thread - but what a proof).
lidlenooney
New Member
Do Me A Favour
Faith,a figment,an easy solution,to an age old problem. If it dont exsist then why not give it a name, but it has no name,so the sooner thoughts of faith and gods stop then so will the search.Then division will sease to exsist.
Faith,a figment,an easy solution,to an age old problem. If it dont exsist then why not give it a name, but it has no name,so the sooner thoughts of faith and gods stop then so will the search.Then division will sease to exsist.
lidlenooney
New Member
i wont t tell u a story..quote[max buygraves]god!
WELL the name chosen is wrong.Rational proof.it'll never work..plus it dos'nt help having an almost audible monotone speach.To create the idea of an alturnative sollution to a nosence question such as god ,faith n everything is very telling indeed.
WELL the name chosen is wrong.Rational proof.it'll never work..plus it dos'nt help having an almost audible monotone speach.To create the idea of an alturnative sollution to a nosence question such as god ,faith n everything is very telling indeed.
gurrier said:
Rather than respond to this reckless old man in his own mean-spirited invective, I shall allow my magnanimity to shame his spite. Gurrier’s insatiable appetite for discord and conflict are best allowed to tell their own sad story. For what clearer contrast could there be between the joyful, heartfelt lovers of Truth and the twisted acrimony of the mockers? Allow me to complement you, Gurrier, on your knowledge of Darwin, which comfortably equals your knowledge of Marx. Your contributions to this and other threads have more than served their purpose, and I graciously thank you for them. You may consider yourself more than welcome to engage me in debate at any time, and I have no doubt that your efforts will meet with the same success as you have hitherto achieved. I wish you the very best of luck, and I look forward to our next engagement with the keenest possible anticipation.
I see the need of some kind of argument showing a rational (or an empirical) association between being malign/powerful and the other properties of spirit, for example being irreducible; otherwise the concept of spirit is meaningless and could not be used to advance our knowldege of fv. As we can create any concepts we like, their meaning to us says nothing about the way the world really is. It would have to be more than the correct meaning of the concept of spirit, the meaning of spirit would have to be real or rationally correct: the properties attributed to spirit would have to be shown to rationally co-occur.ZWord said:
Do you see what I'm saying
I've never really been clear on what you actually mean by materialism. I would say that I subscribe to a form of hierarchical reductionism ontologically speaking, but with the reservation that an understanding of system-theoretic ideas like self-organisation and emergence/connectionism are probably essential tools for understanding the natural and social world. It seems to me to be a worldview of elegant clarity and simplicity, and I don't notice any undue cognitive dissonance involved in using it to model actual events. Moreover, it's capable of providing a platform for concrete political action - something that appears to be woefully lacking in statements such as this.
I have two main concerns about your line of thinking in general; I really wonder whether renouncing the ability to make testable predictions in favour of an understanding of the world that is so intensely metaphorical is an advantageous exchange, and I'm wary of a genealogy that yokes such an unjustified proportion of the whole edifice of modern culture to the ideology of the free market, as the only practical effect of this manoeuvre is to make the problem of market capitalism seem even more intractable than it in fact is.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
I can't believe that this is actually going to beat the bolshevismva anarchism thread.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ZWord is phil's floozy...it's official. 
Since the fat lady seems to be doing her vocal warmups, I may as well post a conclusion on where I stand.
I am still convinced it is impossible to prove/disprove the existence of a god with logic. Phil promised to show that god is a prerequisite of logic, and therefore must exist if logic does. I don't feel he has achieved this.
I am also struggling to understand the difference between an 'idea' and a 'spirit'*. All it would take for me to get this would be a single trait of 'spirit' that all and only spirits posess, a defining characteristic if you will.
As phil never got on to the conclusion of his argument, I can't really judge if it is convincing or not; my intuition tells me it probably won't be for me, but I don't think you can justifyably claim an idea is wrong if you haven't actually heard it.
Conclusion: Insufficient data to decide.**
*the way phil means it.
**and after nearly 2000 posts, that's impressive.
I am still convinced it is impossible to prove/disprove the existence of a god with logic. Phil promised to show that god is a prerequisite of logic, and therefore must exist if logic does. I don't feel he has achieved this.
I am also struggling to understand the difference between an 'idea' and a 'spirit'*. All it would take for me to get this would be a single trait of 'spirit' that all and only spirits posess, a defining characteristic if you will.
As phil never got on to the conclusion of his argument, I can't really judge if it is convincing or not; my intuition tells me it probably won't be for me, but I don't think you can justifyably claim an idea is wrong if you haven't actually heard it.
Conclusion: Insufficient data to decide.**
*the way phil means it.
**and after nearly 2000 posts, that's impressive.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Logic and [blind religious] faith are incompatible and irreconcilable.
- Status
Similar threads
