The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[phildwyer]

why don't you use your powers for good phildwyer

Oh alright then, if I must.

 

[phildwyer]

As long as you also admit that ideas are dependant on the material world for their existence. How can you have a concept of beauty without having a beautiful thing to say "this is beautiful" ? The material world exists outside and independant of us, it is only mediated by ideas, not created by them.

But to say the material world is inevitably 'mediated' by ideas is to say that it is created by them *for us.* There's no point in worrying about what its like, or whether it exists, in any other state than as it appears *for us.* We are human beings, and we can only know what human beings can know, and human beings can only know the material world as it is mediated through ideas. So as far as *we* are concerned, the material world is created by ideas. Fair enough?

 

[phildwyer]

Why is it socially conditioned the way it is then? Do you really believe men are only attracted to hourglass figures because they are conditioned to?

Yes. Not all men are attracted to hourglass figures. The hourglass figure is by no means a universal standard of female beauty, and female beauty is by no means a universal object of sexual attraction for men. The idea that there is a 'natural' mode of sexual desire is pernicious and destructive garbage.

 

[s.norbury]

I am God, and you are too, so shut the fock op

 

[Fruitloop]

The thing is that these ideas whatever they are create *for us* a world that is coherent and consistent, and hopefully relatively free of solipsism - i.e. a world where when a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, it does still make a sound. So you are forced all the time to conclude that the world was here long before there were any ideas about it, will be here long after all ideas have ceased to be, and that the ability to have ideas at all is dependent on existence in and interaction with the world.

 

[phildwyer]

The thing is that these ideas whatever they are create *for us* a world that is coherent and consistent, and hopefully relatively free of solipsism - i.e. a world where when a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, it does still make a sound. So you are forced all the time to conclude that the world was here long before there were any ideas about it, will be here long after all ideas have ceased to be, and that the ability to have ideas at all is dependent on existence in and interaction with the world.

Yes. In philosophical terms, we can deduce the existence of an 'in itself' from the nature of the 'for us.' So it is true that we can know there is a world that exists outside human perception. But here's the thing: we can know *nothing* about that world. Zero, zip, zilch. Why? Because we are human and thus can only know what human perception allows us to know. And human perception depends upon ideas that make human experience possible. As far as *we* are concerned then, the only world that *we* can ever know is created by ideas. Any problems with this so far?

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, you have experience of the world through perception which may or may not be communicable, and then you have the symbolic order/Big Other or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Crispy]

But to say the material world is inevitably 'mediated' by ideas is to say that it is created by them *for us.* There's no point in worrying about what its like, or whether it exists, in any other state than as it appears *for us.* We are human beings, and we can only know what human beings can know, and human beings can only know the material world as it is mediated through ideas. So as far as *we* are concerned, the material world is created by ideas. Fair enough?

Yep, that's what my last paragraph said

 

[Santino]

Yes. In philosophical terms, we can deduce the existence of an 'in itself' from the nature of the 'for us.' So it is true that we can know there is a world that exists outside human perception. But here's the thing: we can know *nothing* about that world. Zero, zip, zilch. Why? Because we are human and thus can only know what human perception allows us to know. And human perception depends upon ideas that make human experience possible. As far as *we* are concerned then, the only world that *we* can ever know is created by ideas. Any problems with this so far?

Yes, my problem is that it is hopelessly outdated 19th century scepticism. We have much more interesting forms of scepticism from the late 20th century to talk about without dredging up Kant.

The fact that as humans we only experience things as humans is banal and tautologous, and anything that follows from that will also be banal and tautologous.

 

[Crispy]

Yes. In philosophical terms, we can deduce the existence of an 'in itself' from the nature of the 'for us.' So it is true that we can know there is a world that exists outside human perception. But here's the thing: we can know *nothing* about that world. Zero, zip, zilch. Why? Because we are human and thus can only know what human perception allows us to know. And human perception depends upon ideas that make human experience possible. As far as *we* are concerned then, the only world that *we* can ever know is created by ideas. Any problems with this so far?

Yes, stop using the word 'created'
The material world exists. It is blurred by our perception equipment. However, we are clever and can build better perceptual equipment than the stuff we are born with. Does the pattern of scales on a dust mite's leg not 'exist' for us because we canot see it with the naked eye?

Bearing in mind that we are still talking in "philosphical terms" and IMO, nearly all philosophy is just a great big word game for clever people.

It's still fun though

 

[Jonti]

"the only world that *we* can ever know is created by ideas"

Funny then, that the world can confound and contradict one's ideas about it

but I guess that's never happened to our dogmatic correspondent

 

[Jo/Joe]

Yes. Not all men are attracted to hourglass figures. The hourglass figure is by no means a universal standard of female beauty, and female beauty is by no means a universal object of sexual attraction for men. The idea that there is a 'natural' mode of sexual desire is pernicious and destructive garbage.

The underlying principles are universal. Men want women that can give them healthy children. This is reflected in body shape, and different environments will mean a different body shape represents health. In our society, the hourglass figure rules. You can cite all the exceptions you want. It doesn't matter if some men have a thing for skinny or fat, there is a reason why they are not generally seen as the most desirable. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if anyone's sexuality does not conform to a norm. There is no substantial effort to stop anyone being attracted to anyone else, bar a few looney Xtian groups that object to homosexuality, a behaviour to be filed alongside creationism, flat earthism, etc, etc.

 

[phildwyer]

The underlying principles are universal. Men want women that can give them healthy children.

Some do, some don't. Some men aren't attracted to women at all. You still seem to be claiming that there is some kind of 'natural' sexuality, and you still seem to think that it is based on the desire to perpetuate our genes. This is social Darwinism of the very worst kind: reactionary and nonsensical.

 

[phildwyer]

Yes, stop using the word 'created'
The material world exists. It is blurred by our perception equipment. However, we are clever and can build better perceptual equipment than the stuff we are born with. Does the pattern of scales on a dust mite's leg not 'exist' for us because we canot see it with the naked eye?

Yes the material world exists. But we can only experience it through the specific apparatuses of the human brain--through innate ideas. This makes it entirely appropriate to say that the material world is created *for us* by ideas. We can know absolutely nothing of the material world as it is in itself, except the bare fact of its existence.

So now the important question becomes: what is the *source* of these ideas that create the world for us? Where do they come from? (I refer to such ideas as time, space, substance, causality and so forth). They cannot come from experience, since they are what makes experience possible. They cannot come from the mind of an individual, since they are universal among human beings.

I now put it to you that the only possible source for these universal ideas, which create the world for human beings, is *other ideas.* Is my reasoning sound thus far?

 

[phildwyer]

Yes, my problem is that it is hopelessly outdated 19th century scepticism. We have much more interesting forms of scepticism from the late 20th century to talk about without dredging up Kant.

The fact that as humans we only experience things as humans is banal and tautologous, and anything that follows from that will also be banal and tautologous.

Kant is no skeptic, he firmly believes that we can know objective truth. And the fact that we can only experience things as humans is far from banal or tautological. Indeed, it refutes all empiricism and all materialism, both of which assume that we can somehow know reality as it is *in itself.* We cannot: we can only know it as it is *for us.* This means that objective truth must be sought within the human mind rather than outside it.

 

[Crispy]

So now the important question becomes: what is the *source* of these ideas that create the world for us? Where do they come from? (I refer to such ideas as time, space, substance, causality and so forth). They cannot come from experience, since they are what makes experience possible. They cannot come from the mind of an individual, since they are universal among human beings.

Why is that not possible? We see the material world behaving in a particular way, we see its interactions with itself (not just us), and find that there are a handful of concepts that explain them for us. Maybe I'm blinded by anthropism, but I'd guess an alien or an AI would come to the same conclusions.

I can't imagine that an amoeba has a 'sense of time' - it's just a sack of chemicals. I imagine an ant has a sense of night and day, but probably not full-3d space (it spends it's entire life on surfaces and can't see very far) So, unfortunately (for the smooth running of this thread, because I know you're going to hate this) I believe these 'universal ideas' are an evolved behaviour/nature/capability etc. In other words, these ideas are dependant upon the capabilities of our senses. The clever thing is, that we can put these senses to the test, decipher how they work, and build better ones - thus improving their effiency, and expanding the toolkit of ideas that we can use to understand the world

I now put it to you that the only possible source for these universal ideas, which create the world for human beings, is *other ideas.* Is my reasoning sound thus far?

Sorry, I was trying hard, but you've lost me now. Try harder to convince me that ideas aren't a manifestation of our sensory capabilities and the evolved behaviour and structure of our brains.

 

[Fruitloop]

What's interesting about the processing of sensory data in the brain is how fictitious it is. For example when you listen to a piece of music there's not a direct time correlation between when things reach the ears and when they're processed by the brain. Instead it seems that you hear in a sort of 'moving window' of time, and then the auditory stream analysis that the brain does reassembles the information into an apparently linear sequence. So I reckon there's good reason to be wary of putting too much emphasis on mental objects when half the time the way in which things are processed are just a pragmatic adaptation that enables us to process lots of different kinds of information simultaneously - a kind of necessary fiction.

I think the question is not what kind of knowledge you can have of the real, which is clearly finite in various ways, but whether you are essentially made up of the same stuff as it. If you are then it would stand to reason that it's as difficult to have objective knowledge of 'your' stuff (which is again to do with the boundaries of the self, more or less an accident of psychology) as it is to have knowledge of anything else.

 

[ZWord]

And what are you made out of? Cells, molecules, atoms, ---

And what are the atoms made out of?

Crispy, I find it difficult to believe you don't get what phil's saying, given your very well thought out contribution to fela's reality and truth thread.

The point is simply that what you called your relativity, is full of things like tables, chairs, and more abstract concepts, that are totally real to you, but have no existence in physical reality.

Edited to add, I now have the impression I didn't really read what you said carefully enough, and didn't understand what you were talking about with phil, making this post kind of irrelevant.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Some do, some don't. Some men aren't attracted to women at all. You still seem to be claiming that there is some kind of 'natural' sexuality, and you still seem to think that it is based on the desire to perpetuate our genes. This is social Darwinism of the very worst kind: reactionary and nonsensical.

You're right phil, God gave us sexual desire so that we can have fun. It isn't an evolved way for genes to replicate.

Tell us more about these men that aren't attracted to women, that sounds facinating.

 

[Crispy]

And what are you made out of? Cells, molecules, atoms, ---

And what are the atoms made out of?

Crispy, I find it difficult to believe you don't get what phil's saying, given your very well thought out contribution to fela's reality and truth thread.

The point is simply that what you called your relativity, is full of things like tables, chairs, and more abstract concepts, that are totally real to you, but have no existence in physical reality.

Well, I think I understand what he's saying - I just don't agree with him I can also see that his final argument will hinge on ideas being just as 'Real' as the material world. I don't need anybody to convince me that the idea of god is real. Plenty of people hold that concept as the highest truth, and it's as real to them as apples falling from trees. But apples fall from trees without any human intervention - and it's exactly the same physical reality for everybody.

Of course, for some (the apple tree worshippers of Orkney, for example), an apple falling from a tree is laden with meaning and more ideas. Still doesn't stop the apple fallinng from the tree at 9.8m/s/s. It is in this manner that god does not exist. It can exist in people's heads as much as anybody wants (although I'd prefer it if they didn't) but as soon as those heads cease to exist, then god will cease to exist.

 

[gurrier]

Of course, for some (the apple tree worshippers of Orkney, for example), an apple falling from a tree is laden with meaning and more ideas. Still doesn't stop the apple fallinng from the tree at 9.8m/s/s. It is in this manner that god does not exist. It can exist in people's heads as much as anybody wants (although I'd prefer it if they didn't) but as soon as those heads cease to exist, then god will cease to exist.

That's just it. God is a meme that has only existed for a few millenia and has an unkown expected lifespan. An interesting and virulent meme but one that is probably limited to a particular stage of social evolution.

I swear I'm not trying to annoy anybody by combining so many heresies.

 

[phildwyer]

That's just it. God is a meme that has only existed for a few millenia and has an unkown expected lifespan. An interesting and virulent meme but one that is probably limited to a particular stage of social evolution.

I'll be back to answer Crispy's excellent questions in due course, but just had to jump in here. Gurrier, you are of course a total wanker, but up until now I did credit you with a certain degree of intellectual acumen. You're not really telling us that you believe in this 'meme' crap are you? You don't *really* think ideas behave like genes? I was under the impression that even those who are fooled by Dawkins's biology ridiculed such notions?

 

[Crispy]

I don't like the word meme either. There are obvious differences between ideas and genes. I do like the way it invokes feelings of longevity and mutation though (which are things you can definately say about the idea of god)

Oh, and has anyone bothered to archive any of this thread in case the current board wobbles screw things up? I'd hate to see it go

 

[Fruitloop]

I reckon 'meme' is at least as explanatory as 'idea' in explaining what goes on inside people's heads. Both of them are far from perfect tho'.

 

[phildwyer]

Oh, and has anyone bothered to archive any of this thread in case the current board wobbles screw things up? I'd hate to see it go

Personally I'm still mourning the loss of the 'Right to Bear Arms' thread--if I saw that in a bookshop I'd buy it. Twas the funniest thing I've ever seen on these boards. Anyway, I really will engage with your questions soon, but have planes to catch and stuff for the next few days so hang in there...

 

[Crispy]

Don't worry, I've got work to do as well. Take your time

 

[Santino]

Kant is no skeptic, he firmly believes that we can know objective truth. And the fact that we can only experience things as humans is far from banal or tautological. Indeed, it refutes all empiricism and all materialism, both of which assume that we can somehow know reality as it is *in itself.* We cannot: we can only know it as it is *for us.* This means that objective truth must be sought within the human mind rather than outside it.

What codswallop. You're confusing knowing things through some kind of conceptual scheme, which is necessary for any knowledge, and only knowing the contents of our own mind.

Of course, I didn't say that Kant was sceptic, which shows just how closely you bother to read other people's posts. Kant's hopelessly systematic and baroque philosophy grew out of his sceptical arguments.

 

[gurrier]

I don't like the word meme either. There are obvious differences between ideas and genes. I do like the way it invokes feelings of longevity and mutation though (which are things you can definately say about the idea of god)

erm, when I said "I swear I'm not trying to annoy anybody by combining so many heresies" I was fibbing.

The sentence was merely a vehicle for the words "meme" and "social evolution" and the idea that god exists in our heads and has a limited life expectancy. For some reason I guessed that this particular combination would get a rise out of our resident minor-deity. Wasn't wrong either

 

[kyser_soze]

phil doesn't like the basic concept of memes, seeing it as a system that reproduces capitalism in minature, based on Dawkin's ideas etc.

'Cultural viral object' might be a better term (certainly more descriptive) of ideas such as 'god' than 'meme' (altho I like the word - and it's snappier), but phil's main objection to them is philosophical - he doesn't like the idea of memes as an evolutionary cultural object because that 'justifies' capitalism.

There are differences between ideas and genes obviously - one is the physical embodiment of DNA and the other the final end product of human DNA writ large, but given that humans are an evolutionary species, does it not make sense that our behaviours and cultural activity will be in and of themselves evolutionary? That because we use the extension of our ideas into the physical world to control that world and make it better for us, then surely those ideas will be subject to the same pressures as genes - the pressure to adapt and succeed, but one that isn't driven in a blind, biological sense but one that DOES have ID attached to it.

This is also why I have often said that those who deny capitalism is the 'natural' way for human societies to govern themselves are missing a trick - if you see 'natural' as being red in tooth and claw etc, whereas something like Marixism is considered and thought out - i.e. it has had intlelligence applied to it (which cap never has - it wasn't constructed it grew organisically out of feudalism when new technologies and old controls were creating a new social environment for it)

 

[Crispy]

Bear in mind, Ky, that both cooperative and competitive behaviours are evolutionarily beneficial, depending on the environment.

I have a feeling I conjugated evolutionarily wrong.