The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[phildwyer]

Don't really know what to say to this. I didn't read the gun thread, at all, though all the same, I think he's got a point, though not one that needs proselytisation.

It seems to me more like phil willingly sets himself up as a pompous academic type who's easy to take the piss out of. His actual name -phildwyer- is fairly unpretentious. I always thought the idea of a logical proof of the existence of God was kind of barking,* but as it turned out, I found the argument he put forward kind of interesting, and not stupid at all. And I think he was far more bullied than bully, on this thread. And I think that the person who starts a thread should be considered to have ownership of it, which was why I thought your accusations that he was trolling were fairly ludicrous on his own thread.

I was reading earlier Diem K, who naturally didn't bother to read the whole thread, who would? Saying - no-one ever seemed to be convinced. If people like you hadn't made such an effort to make phil look like an idiot from the start, then, in fact his thread might have been quite readable, and the quite interesting ideas he puts forward would be quite a lot more accessible.

Maybe it's a worthwhile role being a debunker of idiots. But, to be honest, although I don't know, after reading quite a lot of your arguments with other people including ones when I thoroughly agreed with you, I concluded that probably you're full of shit, and just kind of enjoy being a putdown artist, playing to the gallery, in much the same way that you accuse phil of, even though he's much more of a minority here than you are.

That's a really perceptive post. None of the ideas I have put forward here are new, they've all been published and debated elsewhere by various different people, including myself. The way I've arranged them here is new, I suppose, and of course the *style* of debate in a forum like this is always going to be a bit wacky. But anyone who doesn't recognize a persona when they see one shouldn't be debating on the Web in the first place.

What you say about the bullying is absolutely true, both here and on other threads--bullies don't like to come across people who can give them a sharp taste of their own medicine, they can get quite flustered under such circumstances, and that's what's happened here. As for Nino himself, I fluctuate. Sometimes I quite like him, but at other times he seems to be a very jealous and bitter individual. We'll see how he conducts himself from here on in. Anyway, the vital ingredient necessary to get anything out of this thread, but which so many participants seem to lack, is a sense of humour--which is *not* to say I'm not serious about the ideas I'm presenting...

 

[nino_savatte]

Nice.

 

[laptop]

* waits for azrael23 and merlin twig to come along and support phildwyer, so they can set up a bulletin board all of their very own and live happily ever after *

 

[Jonti]

I volunteer to help them set it up

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by Zword

Don't really know what to say to this. I didn't read the gun thread, at all, though all the same, I think he's got a point, though not one that needs proselytisation.

It seems to me more like phil willingly sets himself up as a pompous academic type who's easy to take the piss out of. His actual name -phildwyer- is fairly unpretentious. I always thought the idea of a logical proof of the existence of God was kind of barking,* but as it turned out, I found the argument he put forward kind of interesting, and not stupid at all. And I think he was far more bullied than bully, on this thread. And I think that the person who starts a thread should be considered to have ownership of it, which was why I thought your accusations that he was trolling were fairly ludicrous on his own thread.

I was reading earlier Diem K, who naturally didn't bother to read the whole thread, who would? Saying - no-one ever seemed to be convinced. If people like you hadn't made such an effort to make phil look like an idiot from the start, then, in fact his thread might have been quite readable, and the quite interesting ideas he puts forward would be quite a lot more accessible.

Maybe it's a worthwhile role being a debunker of idiots. But, to be honest, although I don't know, after reading quite a lot of your arguments with other people including ones when I thoroughly agreed with you, I concluded that probably you're full of shit, and just kind of enjoy being a putdown artist, playing to the gallery, in much the same way that you accuse phil of, even though he's much more of a minority here than you are.

You talk conneries, mon ami. All this crap about me "playing to the gallery" is rather misplaced but then do I really give a fuck what you think? No, I don't and I care even less about what your pal, phil thinks either. If you want to see someone "playing to the gallery" you should look at the person with whom you think you are debating.

I haven't got time for people who think they know it all - as you so clearly do.

I have even less time for this nonsense

What you say about the bullying is absolutely true, both here and on other threads--bullies don't like to come across people who can give them a sharp taste of their own medicine, they can get quite flustered under such circumstances, and that's what's happened here. As for Nino himself, I fluctuate. Sometimes I quite like him, but at other times he seems to be a very jealous and bitter individual. We'll see how he conducts himself from here on in. Anyway, the vital ingredient necessary to get anything out of this thread, but which so many participants seem to lack, is a sense of humour--which is *not* to say I'm not serious about the ideas I'm presenting...

Of course, phil thinks that it's everyone else's fault but his own. In that respect, ZWord, you are little better than him.

Phil makes this claim that he sometimes "likes me". What a load of horseshit. He has spent a great deal of time stalking me and bullying me. That's a funny way of showing how much one "likes someone" - don't you think?

If you think that what you are doing is debating with phil, think again. But then who knows? Maybe you two are running this thing in tandem. Whatever the case I don't give a shit.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I agree, he shows signs of being the perfect interlocutor. But where has he gone?

I have gone to new york , im at the airport so will post again next week.

PS you are a nob.

 

[gurrier]

It seems to me more like phil willingly sets himself up as a pompous academic type who's easy to take the piss out of.

Since we're dealing with ideas and reality, I might as well point out that Phil really is a pompous academic who sees himself as some sort of messiah in an age of scientific unreason. He's easy to take the piss out of because he's so up himself and he vastly over-estimates his own intelligence in comparison to the average intelligence of human beings.

His actual name -phildwyer- is fairly unpretentious. I always thought the idea of a logical proof of the existence of God was kind of barking,* but as it turned out, I found the argument he put forward kind of interesting, and not stupid at all. And I think he was far more bullied than bully, on this thread. And I think that the person who starts a thread should be considered to have ownership of it.

Not on this bulletin board. Of course ye could take jonti's kind offer....

 

[ZWord]

Since we're dealing with ideas and reality, I might as well point out that Phil really is a pompous academic who sees himself as some sort of messiah in an age of scientific unreason. He's easy to take the piss out of because he's so up himself and he vastly over-estimates his own intelligence in comparison to the average intelligence of human beings.

Not on this bulletin board. Of course ye could take jonti's kind offer....

Beh

 

[Jonti]

Beh

I think you're better off here too

When it comes down to it almost the only thing that matters, if one is about finding out the nature of things, is that folk are sincere. That is, whether they use words to communicate meaning and understanding, or to sow confusion.

Here's a bit from John Locke (qv) about this
For reason is easier to be understood than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for truly so are a great part of the theories of phildwyer, which are only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted.
(but I might have misquoted slightly)

 

[Fruitloop]

What kind of dualism are you actually espousing here phil? Is it substance or property dualism?

Are you a Cartesian, phil? I think we should be told.

 

[phildwyer]

What kind of dualism are you actually espousing here phil? Is it substance or property dualism?

Are you a Cartesian, phil? I think we should be told.

No I'm not a Cartesian, and I espouse no form of dualism. I would have thought it was clear by now that I take a dialectical view of the matter/idea polarity as of all others.

 

[Fruitloop]

As in; that matter and idea are different ways we have of organising perception-mediated events?

 

[118118]

I take a dialectical view of the matter/idea polarity as of all others.

Which means what exactly? That matter mutates into ideas? Or that you can't think about ideas without the representation of ideas turnig into a representation of matter? Or what?

 

[118118]

As in; that matter and idea are different ways we have of organising perception-mediated events?

Do you mean 'matter' and 'idea', ot that matter itself, the matter of our brain or somthing, organizes events?

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm not sure I understand your question. The brain organizes the perception of events and stores impressions of them, for sure.

 

[phildwyer]

Phenomenologically speaking, ideas and matter (the "physical" is a more precise term) are inseparable. That is to say, human beings cannot experience one without the other. So it is as absurd to claim that ideas don't exist as it is to claim that the physical wolrd does not exist. It is also absurd to claim that one side of the polarity determines, or can be reduced to, the other.

Anyway, this section of the thread started as a proof of the existence of angels. Since Atomix has gone away for a bit, can everyone now agree that ideas are real, that they do exist? For this is the first stage of my argument.

 

[revol68]

is this shit still running?

 

[Fruitloop]

Personally I agree with the Tractatus L-P that the meaningfulness of the proposition 'X exists' is opaque at best. Leprechauns exist, if you want to look at it that way.

The question that is left unresolved by your explanation is whether matter and idea are one substance or two, and if they are two how they interact with each other, if at all.

I also haven't seen any proof in your explanation of why the correlation between ideas and material is actually causative rather than just apparently so, which is an important point given that a lot of recent thinking on the subject tends towards the latter opinion.

 

[Fruitloop]

is this shit still running?

God help me, I have nothing better to do today.

 

[gurrier]

It is also absurd to claim that one side of the polarity determines, or can be reduced to, the other.

All known evidence is therefore absurd. As is pretty much all of neuro-science (the non-azrael23 varieties that is).

Neuro-science rests on the occam-inspired assumption that mental activity, including ideas, memories, perceptions, etc, is reducible to chemical and electrical activity within the brain. Thusfar, all the evidence discovered about the workings of the brain and its relation to the mind support this view.

But I understand that you are entirely ignorant of the field, so don't allow me to stop your self-love session. I really am looking forward to the mockery that will surround your proof of angels.

 

[phildwyer]

Neuro-science rests on the occam-inspired assumption that mental activity, including ideas, memories, perceptions, etc, is reducible to chemical and electrical activity within the brain. Thusfar, all the evidence discovered about the workings of the brain and its relation to the mind support this view.

It astounds me that you consider yourself some species of Marxist, for your position forces you to abandon such basic Marxian concepts as alienation. Neuro-science is indeed nonsense, at least in its ontological claims. Consider the example Atomix mentioned above: a craftsman making a cup. Clearly the idea of the cup exists before the cup itself. Therefore the idea is something separate from the thing.

Now, I have no doubt that having the idea of the cup will cause certain chemical and electrical reactions in the brain. But only a fool would claim that the idea is *caused* by these reactions. Clearly the idea of the cup is caused by factors within wider society, and wider society is in turn the product of ideas as well as of material factors.

So obvious are these facts that the absurd notion that chemical and electronic reactions in the brain are the cause of ideas--or worse that they actually *are* ideas--is clearly revealed as obfuscatory capitalist ideology. An ideology of which you , Gurrier, in spite of your radical posturing, are an unusually dogmatic exponent.

 

[118118]

All that situated cognition stuff is quite interesting. Not that I've read much on it mind.

 

[gurrier]

It astounds me that you consider yourself some species of Marxist, for your position forces you to abandon such basic Marxian concepts as alienation. Neuro-science is indeed nonsense, at least in its ontological claims. Consider the example Atomix mentioned above: a craftsman making a cup. Clearly the idea of the cup exists before the cup itself. Therefore the idea is something separate from the thing.

The idea is a different thing.

Now, I have no doubt that having the idea of the cup will cause certain chemical and electrical reactions in the brain. But only a fool would claim that the idea is *caused* by these reactions. Clearly the idea of the cup is caused by factors within wider society, and wider society is in turn the product of ideas as well as of material factors.

The idea is a particular neuro-biological event. The relationship between the particular object and the neuro-biological events associated with it is complex and it is simply wrong to try to ascribe an ultimate cause - on the level of abstraction that you are dealing with, we can say that it has evolutionary, experiential and societal influences, which are themselves encoded materially in the particular configuration of molecules that is the brain. That is to say, that for any particular brain, there will be a different set of associations triggered by a particular stimulus (or context state) and thus, the concept of an idea of an object that you are refering to would probably be closer to a total brain-state than to the activity of the small number of neurons that are most closely coupled to that object.

Incidentally, we have now got a growing body of evidence which suggests that abstractions of common objects such as cups are encoded in single neurons. The more excited that neuron, the greater amount of 'cupiness' there is in the consciousness and vice versa.

On the other hand, saying that "only a fool" would claim causation on a low level of abstraction in favour of a causation at a higher level of abstraction, is silly. We can perfectly well say that everything is caused by the basic laws of the universe, for example. It's simply not a very useful level of abstraction for most purposes..

So obvious are these facts that the absurd notion that chemical and electronic reactions in the brain are the cause of ideas--or worse that they actually *are* ideas--is clearly revealed as obfuscatory capitalist ideology. An ideology of which you , Gurrier, in spite of your radical posturing, are an unusually dogmatic exponent.

Yawn. Enough talk of absurd notions and obfuscatory posturing. On to your proof of angels!

 

[Jonti]

is this shit still running?

It'll run until there's a critical mass of readers with phildwyer on ignore, or he goes away. The existence of God is not something that can be proved. There is no rational need for that hypothesis.

Some people have an emotional need to believe in a Deity, and they cannot be proved wrong, that's all.

 

[Aldebaran]

I read the title of this thread and looked at a page or two, but I can't spend hours on reading all of it.
Yet I see that there is already a conclusion posted since trying to prove that angels exist can't be done - in my view - without first proving that God exists. Can someone please direct me to that post?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

It'll run until there's a critical mass of readers with phildwyer on ignore, or he goes away. The existence of God is not something that can be proved. There is no rational need for that hypothesis.

There is as much rational for that thesis then there is for the thesis proposing that God does not exist.
You only demonstrate that you fall in the known trap, which looks to me like the Central Dogma of the Religion of the God Deniers.

Some people have an emotional need to believe in a Deity, and they cannot be proved wrong, that's all.

I don't have any emotional need to believe in the existence of what is commonly called "God" in human language.
I came to the conclusion that "God" exists because that is the rational thing to do.
That you can't prove me wrong already proves that you can't prove to be correct in your denial.
It also proves that the probability and the possibility of God's existence exists. Follows that what is covered with the word "God" is unknown outside the human ideas about what is meant by this concept meant by the word "God", which is a human-made. Naked reality of human perception inevitably includes his perception of the abstract, and hence the existence of the abstract within human reality. If you make an analytic dissection of the abstract you find that there God exists not only as a possiblity or probability but as reality within its reality. Unlimited by the human concept describing "God", since the abstract, shaped in its perceived form by human perception, goes in fact beyond this perception and has no limits.

The only thing you can do is to deny knowledge about the existence of the concept referred to as "God", yet since you use the word or refer to its meaning, you speak against yourself.

Now say that I am completely wrong and we can have a discussion

salaam.

 

[Crispy]

I read the title of this thread and looked at a page or two, but I can't spend hours on reading all of it.
Yet I see that there is already a conclusion posted since trying to prove that angels exist can't be done - in my view - without first proving that God exists. Can someone please direct me to that post?

salaam.

You know those signposts you get in extreme geographical places, with fingers pointing to every capital city (New York, 5498 miles) ? Cos that's the sort of navigation you'd need to negotiate this thread

 

[phildwyer]

The idea is a different thing.

The idea is a particular neuro-biological event. The relationship between the particular object and the neuro-biological events associated with it is complex and it is simply wrong to try to ascribe an ultimate cause - on the level of abstraction that you are dealing with, we can say that it has evolutionary, experiential and societal influences, which are themselves encoded materially in the particular configuration of molecules that is the brain. That is to say, that for any particular brain, there will be a different set of associations triggered by a particular stimulus (or context state) and thus, the concept of an idea of an object that you are refering to would probably be closer to a total brain-state than to the activity of the small number of neurons that are most closely coupled to that object.

Incidentally, we have now got a growing body of evidence which suggests that abstractions of common objects such as cups are encoded in single neurons. The more excited that neuron, the greater amount of 'cupiness' there is in the consciousness and vice versa.

On the other hand, saying that "only a fool" would claim causation on a low level of abstraction in favour of a causation at a higher level of abstraction, is silly. We can perfectly well say that everything is caused by the basic laws of the universe, for example. It's simply not a very useful level of abstraction for most purposes..

Yawn. Enough talk of absurd notions and obfuscatory posturing. On to your proof of angels!

The idea may *cause* a neuro-biological event, but it cannot be identified with it. What you refer to as “experiential and societal influences”--I would prefer to say “history and life”--are not exclusively material, they are also made up of ideas. People certainly *experience* ideas, do they not? So I think you must concede that ideas are caused in some degree by other ideas.

Let us return to our cup-maker. Clearly he has an idea of a cup in his mind before the actual cup exists. Obviously this idea is not caused by neuro-biological events within his brain--on the contrary the idea *causes* these events. The idea is thus the determining factor both of the physical events within the brain and, in a sense and to a degree, of the cup itself.

Now, where does this idea come from? Does it not come from the cup-maker’s training, his experience of other cups, the historical evolution of tableware, the market demand for blue or red cups… in short from life and history: of which ideas are undeniably experiential elements? So we see that ideas do indeed cause other ideas. Ideas are not, in other words, caused by physical events. They exist autonomously, in the “realm of ideas.”

I have no problem with the argument that the idea of “cupness” as you call it is “encoded” in particular neurons or whatever, though I find this uninteresting. My point is that this idea of “cupness”--that is the *concept,* the Platonic “eidos” or Hegelian “Begriff” of cupness--*also* exists outside the brain and apart from these neurons. And furthermore this concept of “cupness” is the ultimate cause of the particular idea of a cup that comes into our cup-maker’s mind.

The only way to prove the existence of angels is to proceed by Socratic steps, but basically I will be arguing that angels are ideas that exist outside the individual brain. So my first step is to establish that ideas *within* the brain are real, and that they are not necessarily caused by, and certainly not reducible to, neuro-biological events. Are we all now convinced of this?

 

[phildwyer]

I came to the conclusion that "God" exists because that is the rational thing to do.

Me too. I have never had "faith" in God, and I consider faith an absurd reason to believe in anything. Like most people in Western society, I was a completely unreflective atheist until I read a lot of books on the subject.

 

[The Groke]

phildwyer is teh lol-est!