The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
You make it all up in your head, don't you? It doesn't make it any more real. God is a product of your imagination...much like all the other things thatyou imagine about others on Urban.
You resurrected this thread because your gun nut thread got binned. It was entirely predictable.
You can accuse me of anger all you like, the fact remains that you are a bullshitting narcissist who begins threads like this to satisfy your egoistic needs.
Feel free to reply to me with a post dominated by asterisks. I know you will.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
More bullshit from the king of bullshitters. Hell, you're not even consistent in your arguments.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
If I put two stones in a bucket with two other stones and then wipe out the entire human race, there will still be four stones in that bucket. If maths is just a construct of our minds, then that seems to put a big fat hole in the argument. Unless there's a hole in the bucket. Dear Liza.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
It's so easy to accuse others of lying when you've been caught redhanded. You resurrected this thread because your gun nut thread got binned. There is no other reason.
You are the one who is lying and everyone (but you) can see that.
I shan't be apologising to you. Indeed, it is you who owes me an apology.
Fruitloop said:
What is this, Lacan? If so I fear I cannot follow you into those black waters. The truth is that we need to distinguish not two but *three* realms of existence: the material, the symbolic and the ideal. Each of these realms is equally real. To put it crudely: there are things, there are words, and there are ideas.
nino_savatte said:
No Nino, it is you who are either mistaken or lying. When you read back a page or so you will see that it was not I who resurrected this thread. After you have registered this fact you have two choices: apologize or be publically revealed as a liar.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I can't see this thread going anywhere (it never went anywhere to begin with). I'm only surprised phil hasn't begun a thread on abstinence. 
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
It really doesn;t matter: you saw your opportunity and seized upon it. Now you're repeating the same shite you said many pages ago. So, as far as I'm concerned you've resurrected this thread.
You can whistle for your apology, you sad excuse for a human being.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Well, phil?
Fruitloop said:
But Lacan and Zizek are far more amenable to my argument than I am allowing myself to be here. For them, even the *real* is constructed out of signification. Post-structuralism in general remains within the scope of the theological: its an anti-theology, true, but it uses the same concepts. You may be aware of Derrida's interest in and influence on negative theology? The key point to remember is that *logos,* which deconstruction is determined to reveal at the heart of all human experience, is a Biblical term for God.
Fruitloop said:
So we're back to the Kantian distinction between the 'for us' and the 'in itself.' But that distinction, of course, was developed to *prove* the existence of noumena, and hence of God. I would go so far as to say that this distinction is incompatible with atheism--it may be compatible with agnosticism, but no-one who believe in noumena can say there is no God.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
nino_savatte said:
He didn't ressurect it Nino, Cadmus did:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4474366&postcount=2193
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Crispy said:
Aye but he couldn't resist the temptation to transfer his 'game' back to this thread. In that respect, he is just as guilty as Cadmus. Folk shouldn't encourage phil, because that's what he wants.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Aren't you going to ask some silly questions about my origins, phil?
Fuckwit.
Fuckwit.
phildwyer said:
Hmm, I think there are more approaches to the real than just the Kantian one. For Zizek (and for Hegel as well I believe, although I'm no expert) the nature of the real is tripartite, in that the appearance of the thing in-itself is always already for us - what is examined is always the gaze and never the object.
Fruitloop said:
Yes, of course the thing-in-itself is unknowable. But if one uses the category of the for-us, one inevitably acknowledges the existence of the in-itself. One acknowledges, that is, that there is an *essence* that underlies perceptible *appearance.* Kant, Hegel and Zizek all acknowledge this, in their various ways. The realm of essence is the realm of noumena, and thus of what previous ages called "God." Note that post-structuralism does not deny the existence of logos, but on the contrary postulates that logos is what makes human experience possible. It is, as I said, a theological discourse.
What previous ages meant when they talked about God seems to refer to a whole host of things, many of them hopelessly anthropomorphic. Whether or not some of these signifieds resembled either Kant's noumena or Lacan's real is pretty arbitrary and uninteresting, as far as I can see.
Fruitloop said:
Yes, that's what Hegel calls "picture thinking," the mythological form in which religion is inevitably presented to the uneducated. But we are speaking here of the originally Platonic, then Judaic, Christian and Muslim concept of the *logos*--which is exactly and precisely what the scriptures of all the monotheistic religions call "God," as at John 1:1.
Fruitloop said:
Among many other reasons, because once you identify the logos as God, the philosophical heritage and ethical significance of Derridean anti-logocentrism become manifest. Many postmodernist thinkers, untrained in theology, miss these vital points.
- Status
Similar threads
