The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[weltweit]

Having read the thread from the start to here I am dropping in my first comment on U75.

I was hoping for a rational explanation in straightforward english of the existence of God. That is not what I have found. Despite that the thread is not necessarily finished I do not now expect such a rational logical statement to appear, even if the thread reaches another 1,000 posts.

There has been plenty of time for it already if it in actual fact existed.

This thread has done nothing to challenge or modify my own beliefs that:

1. There may be a god

2. There may be only one

3. I cannot be certain.

If anyone wants to challenge them, knock yourselves out

 

[Crispy]

If anyone wants to challenge them, knock yourselves out

The brick wall is already surrounded by a pile of unconscious bodies

 

[Fruitloop]

My head hurts

 

[kyser_soze]

I iz on ur fred, proovin yr godz rashunalz

 

[Crispy]

But we can also deduce that status by analyzing the *psychological* effects of efficacious signs. And to do that we need to apply pre-Enlightenment intellectual techniques that predate the global predominance of capital.

And that's

 

[inflatable jesus]

That's hilarious.

 

[nino_savatte]

Is this an attempt to create the longest thread in history?

Nah, it's just grist for phil's mill. Anyone who is thinking of a serious discussion here is in for a disappointment. The thread starter's intentions are not sincere.

Isn't that right, phil?

 

[nino_savatte]

I did one more than twice this long once. It would be about 10,000 pages by now if it hadn't been binned.

One could say that that thread, and this one, are cyber extensions of your cock - non? Mais oui!

 

[Fruitloop]

It seems to have detumesced somewhat of late. The thread, that is. I have no knowledge of the other. Thankfully.

 

[nino_savatte]

It seems to have detumesced somewhat of late. The thread, that is. I have no knowledge of the other. Thankfully.

 

[Pickman's model]

to summarise for latecomers: phildwyer wanted to prove the existence of god but fucked it up.

 

[fractionMan]

Three years!

Fuck me. Where did all the time go?

 

[phildwyer]

Dıng-dıng, round two!

 

[fractionMan]

oh god no.

 

[kyser_soze]

Ohlordhelpmejesuslordhelpmeithinkthezombiethreadisouttogetmeohlordhelpmejesuslord

 

[Pickman's model]

Three years!

Fuck me. Where did all the time go?

shh

dwyer will start a bloody thread on that

 

[Pickman's model]

On several of the anti-Darwinist threads, I have been asked to back up my claim that God's existence can be demonstrated rationally. To my shame, I have only responded by referring my interlocuters to Kant, Hegel or Marx. This was necessary because my time is limited, and I thought it would be useful because I assumed that some people would already by familiar with these people's ideas. How wrong I was! As you might expect, this proof is rather complicated, which is why the common herd of religious believers must rest content with "faith." But, if anyone's genuinely interested, I can take you through it in such a way that you will not only understand, but be utterly and completely convinced by.

This will be a lengthy process. It will have to be taken step by step, and those steps will have to be little. I will make sure that I have established each of my points before moving on to the next stage of the argument. And of course I will have to pause periodically to kick away Gurrier, Nino Savatte and the rest of the pack of mangy curs who have nothing better to do than yap at my heels all day. Many on these boards are fanatical anti-theists, and convincing them will not be easy. But I shoulder the task with goodwill--someone has to do it--and it ought to be fun. The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange. Yes, exchange. The exchange, say, of a cow for a lamb. This will eventually produce the commodity which, of which Karl Marx says:

"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."

He was not using the words "metaphysical" and "theological" figuratively. First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.* The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb. Is everyone with me so far?
Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses.

can you summarise your proof so discussion can commence anew?

 

[chainsaw cat]

Faith is what people who don't have the time or inclination to work through the rational proof must rely on. The rational proof is very complicated, and most people simply can't be bothered to follow it. In fact, I'm not altogether sure that *I* can be bothered, but I'll try to stick with it. I reckon I'll limit myself to one post a day on this thread though, or it will take over my entire life. So any objectors to what I've said so far have *one* day to raise their hands. No going back later on.

Why do you put asterisks around words?

 

[phildwyer]

Why do you put asterisks around words?

Turkısh keyboard.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I didn't read the thread because it was too long and there was only a miniscule chance of gaining anything valuable from it. But was this undeniable proof ever provided by phildwyer? I wish he would have just put it all in the first post so I could have had a giggle without wasting my life reading 106 pages.

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't read the thread because it was too long and there was only a miniscule chance of gaining anything valuable from it. But was this undeniable proof ever provided by phildwyer? I wish he would have just put it all in the first post so I could have had a giggle without wasting my life reading 106 pages.

there is no proof

dwyer couldn't prove the existence of a fucking turd, let alone a supreme being

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

there is no proof

dwyer couldn't prove the existence of a fucking turd, let alone a supreme being

Yeah but I wanted a laugh

 

[fredfelt]

What's the point of faith if there is proof of your / a God?

 

[Pickman's model]

What's the point of faith if there is proof of your / a God?

what's the point of phildwyer?

 

[phildwyer]

What's the point of faith if there is proof of your / a God?

None. Except that most people fınd ıt dıffıcult to grasp the ratıonal proof, untıl ıt ıs carefully explaıned to them.

 

[Pickman's model]

None. Except that most people fınd ıt dıffıcult to grasp the ratıonal proof, untıl ıt ıs carefully explaıned to them.

go on then

 

[newme]

go on then

This should be a laugh, lol.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

go on then

In one post please this time. I don't need my hand held as you guide me through the argument. I'll look forward to being transformed on my return form the pub. Laters

 

[phildwyer]

In one post please this time. I don't need my hand held as you guide me through the argument.

Yes you do.

Very well. Let us begın wıth the concept of value, or meanıng.

Can we agree that human beıngs ınevıtably ımpose a value or meanıng on sense data ın the act of experıencıng ıt? And that the ımposıtıon of thıs value or meanıng ıs the defınıtıve characterıstıc of human conscıousness?

 

[8ball]

I'm uncomfortable about starting a ladder of logic by starting with an implicit assumption that 'value' and 'meaning' are not quite different things.