The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[revol68]

phil fuck off the high horse and start proving the flying spaghetti monster.

And if I remember my point about Lukacs was that you couldn't have read him to well if you held exchange equivalence to be somehow innate.

yeah they only become equal through the logic of exchange value. Capital reduces everything to a exchange value, everything becomes qualitively the same in the form of money, only differing quantivly.

I would have thought that ole phildywer as a fan of Lukacs (and nodoubt Adorno) would have known this.

so i was actually criticising you for making reactioanary ahistoric claims.

 

[Brainaddict]

In which case, why did you mock him by sarcastically dubbing him "a real intellectual heavyweight," and how did you think you were "insulting my philosophical abilities" by comparing me to him? Admit it, you thought it was me, and you were so excited you stopped thinking for a minute. Just apologize and we'll forget all about it.

No Phil, once again we seem to be stretching your comprehension skills, but let's run through it one more time. I was mocking *you* by comparing you to a man who *is* an intellectual heavyweight (or looks like it at a brief glance).

 

[phildwyer]

No Phil, once again we seem to be stretching your comprehension skills, but let's run through it one more time. I was mocking *you* by comparing you to a man who *is* an intellectual heavyweight (or looks like it at a brief glance).

No you weren't, you liar. You thought it was me. And BTW, if that Phil Dwyer really is your idea of an "intellectual heavyweight" you obviously have no notion of what's going on here.

 

[phildwyer]

phil fuck off the high horse and start proving the flying spaghetti monster.

And if I remember my point about Lukacs was that you couldn't have read him to well if you held exchange equivalence to be somehow innate.


so i was actually criticising you for making reactioanary ahistoric claims.

Just *wait,* you impetuous little person. I'm getting to it, in fact I'll be dealing at some length with the difference between Lukacs's historically specific concept of reification and the general Hegelian idea of alienation. But I won't use those terms, because people won't understand them, and in any case, as you see, Brainaddict has cleverly found another way to derail this thread and prevent me from getting on with the argument, so we may never even get that far.

 

[Brainaddict]

No you weren't, you liar. You thought it was me. And BTW, if that Phil Dwyer really is your idea of an "intellectual heavyweight" you obviously have no notion of what's going on here.

I'd object to being called a liar by you if I thought anyone would listen to your opinion.

Quite apart from the apparent differences in thinking abilities between you and the linked phil dwyer, there is another difference - you argue like a teenager and he looks to be at least 40 - so you see there was never much risk of people confusing the two of you.

 

[revol68]

Just *wait,* you impetuous little person. I'm getting to it, in fact I'll be dealing at some length with the difference between Lukacs's historically specific concept of reification and the general Hegelian idea of alienation. But I won't use those terms, because people won't understand them, and in any case, as you see, Brainaddict has cleverly found another way to derail this thread and prevent me from getting on with the argument, so we may never even get that far.

So your basically going to reject Lukacs historical materialism in favour of some essentialist idealist Hegelian shit, and then go on to prove God or Geist from that. Nice

So a pompous reworking of a pompous dead German, what a great proof.

 

[phildwyer]

I'd object to being called a liar by you if I thought anyone would listen to your opinion.

Quite apart from the apparent differences in thinking abilities between you and the linked phil dwyer, there is another difference - you argue like a teenager and he looks to be at least 40 - so you see there was never much risk of people confusing the two of you.

I am content to leave the question of whether or not you are a liar to the judgment of others: the evidence is clear enough. Furthermore, this Phil Dwyer, while he seem to be a perfectly nice chap, does not enjoy an international reputation in philosophy. I'd certainly never heard of him, or I wouldn't have used his name. So the fact that you think my thought is comparable to his speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate philosophical arguments. In fact, it makes me wonder what you're doing on this thread. You don't seem to be interested in the discussion.

 

[phildwyer]

So your basically going to reject Lukacs historical materialism in favour of some essentialist idealist Hegelian shit, and then go on to prove God or Geist from that. Nice

So a pompous reworking of a pompous dead German, what a great proof.

No, idiot, that's obviously not what I'm going to do. Just *wait,* will you, I have to deal with Brainaddict first, for one thing, and then there'll be a while before we get onto reification. Patience.

 

[kyser_soze]

So the fact that you think my thought is comparable to his speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate philosophical arguments.

Ermmm, no. I think it speaks volumes of BAs abiliity to type 'phil dwyer' into Google tho

THe Many Faces of PhilD

 

[parallelepipete]

No you weren't, you liar. You thought it was me. And BTW, if that Phil Dwyer really is your idea of an "intellectual heavyweight" you obviously have no notion of what's going on here.

What, so you're saying he isn't an "intellectual heavyweight" then? I hear some besmirching going on here!

 

[revol68]

sorry but I fail to see how discussing reificatian, alienation or commodity fetishism gets us any closer to proving the existance of a diety or for that matter anything outside the material realm.

So far your debate has centred on human concepts, how you intend to jump from there into the heavens is beyond me.

 

[Brainaddict]

I am content to leave the question of whether or not you are a liar to the judgment of others: the evidence is clear enough. Furthermore, this Phil Dwyer, while he seem to be a perfectly nice chap, does not enjoy an international reputation in philosophy. I'd certainly never heard of him, or I wouldn't have used his name. So the fact that you think my thought is comparable to his speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate philosophical arguments. In fact, it makes me wonder what you're doing on this thread. You don't seem to be interested in the discussion.

I love the implication here that your thought does or should enjoy an international reputation

Phil, I'm afraid that whatever you tell yourself, you have demonstrated your inability to read a text in a rigorous and scholarly manner over and over again on this very thread. You could not possibly, therefore, be a philosophy professor, hence the ludicrousness of me making the comparison. Do you understand the humour now? It's not funny when explained of course. It never is

 

[trashpony]

No, idiot, that's obviously not what I'm going to do. Just *wait,* will you, I have to deal with Brainaddict first, for one thing, and then there'll be a while before we get onto reification. Patience.

You are beginning to sound like you're losing yours.

 

[phildwyer]

So far your debate has centred on human concepts, how you intend to jump from there into the heavens is beyond me.

I'm well aware of that. Fear not though, once we get beyond the barracking, I will soon bring the matter within your capabilities.

 

[revol68]

so your going to make a leap that every other philosopher and theologian has had to bridge with faith?

Are you an Immanuel Kant Or an Immanuel Kan?

 

[fractionMan]

so your going to make a leap that every other philosopher and theologian has had to bridge with faith?

Are you an Immanuel Kant Or an Immanuel Kan?

I'd give him top marx for effort though.

now where did I leave my coat?

 

[phildwyer]

What, so you're saying he isn't an "intellectual heavyweight" then? I hear some besmirching going on here!

How could I besmirch him? I've never even heard of him. He doesn't appear to have published anything to speak of. I know nothing of him.

 

[revol68]

Or will he just Spinoza his way out of this one.

 

[phildwyer]

Or will he just Spinoza his way out of this one.

You know Foucault about it.

 

[revol68]

well Adorno about that.

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by maomao
I'm with you here Bernie. It would be nice if this thread didn't just descend into abuse and flaming because that wouldn't actually defeat Phil's phaluses.

Aye, the original multi-dick man! I'm sure you mean 'fallacies' but I found this funny...and somewhat true.

 

[Alf Klein]

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.

I'm from the UK and have never heard of a Pret half sandwich.

 

[phildwyer]

well Adorno about that.

I'm not Saussure either.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm from the UK and have never heard of a Pret half sandwich.

Its obviously some poncy London thing.

 

[TeeJay]

 

[revol68]

I'm not Saussure either.

well then whats all this Husserl a-Barthes then?

 

[Alf Klein]

Its obviously some poncy London thing.

Probably

Please continue

 

[phildwyer]

well then whats all this Husserl a-Barthes then?

How many Schoepenhauers till Christmas?

 

[TeeJay]

As Martin Luther put it: "Money is the word of the clowns, through which they create everything in the world, just as the Noodle Monster creates through the true word."

 

[Doomsy]

Phil, it is impossible to prove whether or not a God exists through logic alone, and I can prove it.

Of course, in keeping with the format of the thread, you'll have to wait till tomorrow for me to do so.

Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel!