The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[Gmart]

With a thread this long, I would say that there is NO rational proof of God's existence - it can only be a matter of faith. And as with all steps of faith, the nihilists and non-believers can, and frequently do rationally cut it down.

A better question would be: is there a rational reason why God does NOT exist? - the answer for which is again 'no' because we cannot say anything certain about the ineffable - we simply don't know - though it seems very unlikely - more likely is that Man created an anthropomorphic being as an 'answer', and called it God. Thus there is little to gain from talking about it at all except in terms of faith being a reaction to fear, and that both are illusions of the self anyway.

 

[phildwyer]

With a thread this long, I would say that there is NO rational proof of God's existence - it can only be a matter of faith.

Only an idiot would believe anything based on faith.

So how would you account for the fact that the vast majority of learned people, throughout history and in every culture, have believed in God?

Obviously, there are rational proofs of God's existence.

But they are not easy for a layperson to grasp. What I am doing here is explaining one of them in simple terms, so that absolutely anyone will be able to understand it.

 

[phildwyer]

A better question would be: is there a rational reason why God does NOT exist? - the answer for which is again 'no'

Again, I would disagree. There are rational arguments for atheism. Not very good ones, in my opinion, but they do exist.

Of course most atheists have no idea what they are. Most atheists do indeed base their position on faith.

The difference between our society and all previous societies is that atheism has become what I call the "default position."

That is to say, someone who has never thought or read about the question will automatically tend to be an atheist.

Whereas in all previous societies (and most non-Western societies today) such a person would automatically tend to be a believer.

A fascinating historical development, no?

 

[phildwyer]

more likely is that Man created an anthropomorphic being as an 'answer', and called it God.

First of all, the anthropomorphic conception of God is mere "picture thinking," a sop to the uneducated. No serious thinker conceives of God as an old man with a long white beard.

Second: an answer to what? Why do you think there are ontological questions that need answering? I would suggest that the fact that questions are raised by the very nature of the human condition (and they most certainly are, as your post clearly indicates) is itself evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Gmart]

Only an idiot would believe anything based on faith.

I disagree - I think it is necessary in life to (for example) believe in your friends.

So how would you account for the fact that the vast majority of learned people, throughout history and in every culture, have believed in God?

They thinker-prover the dubious story to themselves.

Obviously, there are rational proofs of God's existence.

No, there are various stories you can believe in, but they all require the individual to selectively assess the evidence - ie to thinker-prover the story to themselves - they have to WANT to believe in it (ie they have an agenda) and so they take any evidence and make it fit into their story (ie. thinker-prover).

 

[Gmart]

Second: an answer to what? Why do you think there are ontological questions that need answering?

I did put the word 'answer' in quotes.

I would suggest that the fact that questions are raised by the very nature of the human condition (and they most certainly are, as your post clearly indicates) is itself evidence for the existence of God.

No, the fact that questions are raised could be a symptom of consciousness. It does not imply the existence of an anthropomorphised God like being. Man questions as part of his programming - that does not mean that every question has an answer, if only life were that simple...

 

[phildwyer]

to thinker-prover the story to themselves - they have to WANT to believe in it (ie they have an agenda) and so they take any evidence and make it fit into their story (ie. thinker-prover).

Look, with all respect, don't you think it's a bit daft to dismiss the likes of Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard etc etc as self-deluded "thinker-provers" who just believe stuff because they feel like it?

You don't have to agree with them, of course. But as soon as you actually sit down to read such people, you will immediately be struck by their utterly ruthless and unremitting application of reason and logic. You will be also struck by the complete absence of "faith" from their arguments.

So as I say, to claim that there is no rational argument for God's existence is just plain silly and obviously wrong.

Now, it is true that these arguments are difficult for people to grasp. But I believe that at least one of them can be communicated in such simple terms as to completely convince absolutely anybody. And that is what I am doing here.

Shall we proceed?

 

[Gmart]

Look, with all respect, don't you think it's a bit daft to dismiss the likes of Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard etc etc as self-deluded "thinker-provers" who just believe stuff because they feel like it?

I haven't got a problem with the vast majority of their input into Western Civilisation, but on the point of the existence of an anthropomorphised being called God, then I do indeed dismiss their arguments as them persuading themselves, and creating a no doubt complex dubious story to do so. It would NEED to be complex because they were undoubtedly more intelligent than the average.

I don't blame them of course - they lived in a time when everyone believed the same thing and were discussing the faith a lot - but get a lot of believers together and they will all persuade themselves that they are right.

Remember that there are many other religions which are not based on a single anthropomorphic being, and they persuade themselves that their dubious story is right too...

 

[phildwyer]

There is no god Phil, it's a silly idea. I can't prove there is no god, but there is no proof of his existence either. I also can't prove that unicorns don't live in secret underground bunkers on mars.

Actually you can't prove anything at all.

For anyone who cares to skip the rest of Atomic Suplex's posts on this thread, they generally take the form of a hideously distorted Socratic dialogue. Something like this:

PD: Ah, Atomic Suplex. Will you walk with me this morning?

AS: To laugh at your stupid ideas I will.

PD: I am always glad of your company. Tell me, do you have a dog?

AS: I do, what of it?

PD: So the dog is yours?

AS: She is.

PD: And does your dog have a mother?

AS: Of course she does, twat.

PD: And the mother is also yours?

AS: Yes twat, she is.

PD: So you use your mother as a dog?

AS: Stop trolling, twat.

PD: You beat your own mother?

AS: I ought to beat you, twat!

PD: I know that you become annoyed when your logic is shown to be faulty.

AS: Mods! Mods! Dwyer is trolling again….

Etc., repeat as necessary….

 

[Knotted]

Not necessarily a cow. Could be any object of exchange. The basic point is to prove that human beings do not perceive the world as it actually is, but rather their own ideas about the world.

Once that has been proved, the rest should be fairly straightforward.

That needs proved rather than assumed - I'm sceptical.

I should also point out that at the minute you are making a point about psychology rather than philosophy ie. you are arguing about how humans happen perceive the world not what is necessary for any creature to perceive the world. That is you are making an empirical point rather than a rational point.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

AS: Mods! Mods! Dwyer is trolling again….

Etc., repeat as necessary….

Get a grip Dwyer you tool. I told you before that I have never complained to the mods about you or anyone else. (Please feel free to check this fact with the mods).
If the mods are on your back about about being a cock it is because you have made a big enough cock of yourself for them to notice without me having to point it out.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Buffoon.

See--I knew it was worth keeping this guy around.

Buffoon you say? You said you had not mentioned kant but in fact you did, in your opening post no less. It is not illogical for knotted to suggest you have been reading and interpreting kant wrongly.

Phil this thread just keeps on making you look more of an imbecile. Your childish and petty pops at me continually and conveniently ignore any fact or issue. Challengers are deemed 'idiots' and their often relevant objections are ignored proving you have - if not a blind faith in god, then at the very least a blind faith in your own flawed ideas and bloated ego.

 

[chazegee]

Internet gold.
I remember this one, half educated lol.

 

[phildwyer]

That needs proved rather than assumed - I'm sceptical.

I should also point out that at the minute you are making a point about psychology rather than philosophy ie. you are arguing about how humans happen perceive the world not what is necessary for any creature to perceive the world. That is you are making an empirical point rather than a rational point.

You've lost me now.

Obviously a rational point is a point about how human beings perceive the world, for human beings are the only rational creature in the world.

And I don't see how it needs proving that, in order for an exchange to take place, the value of object A must be perceptible in the physical body of object B. That is what we mean when we say "one cow is worth one sheep." The cow's value is present in the physical body of the sheep.

Nothing empirical about this, obviously the cow is not empirically present in the sheep. That would be absurd, and a rather unpleasant image to boot.

Now, does everyone agree with me so far? If not, you have until this time tomorrow to raise any questions.

 

[phildwyer]

Buffoon you say?

That is correct, yes. Your function on this thread is Resident Buffoon.

And quite frankly it is a function that you have performed rather poorly today. I strongly suggest that you buck up your ideas a bit on the buffoon front. Otherwise I will have no alternative but to ban you, along with Pickman's. And you wouldn't want to be isolated with him, would you?

 

[Knotted]

You've lost me now.

Obviously a rational point is a point about how human beings perceive the world, for human beings are the only rational creature in the world.

That just doesn't make sense. You can make an empirical point about human rationality.

And I don't see how it needs proving that, in order for an exchange to take place, the value of object A must be perceptible in the physical body of object B. That is what we mean when we say "one cow is worth one sheep." The cow's value is present in the physical body of the sheep.

That does need proving. I've no idea why you would think that. As you present your argument it just sounds like trickery. It also blatantly contradicts Marx who you are supposedly basing this argument on.

Why would the value be perceptible? Unless you attach a price label, you cannot gain any idea of an object's value by merely examining it. Surely the economic value of a commodity is dependent not on the physical make up of the commodity but on the market for that commidity and the production costs of that commodity.

 

[kyser_soze]

Hang on a sec. Wasn't one of the big things about empiricism in the early days related to how you can 'rationally' prove pretty much anything, no matter how idiotic?

 

[phildwyer]

Why would the value be perceptible?

Obviously it is not empirically perceptible, but it must be rationally perceptible.

Why would the value be perceptible? Unless you attach a price label, you cannot gain any idea of an object's value by merely examining it. Surely the economic value of a commodity is dependent not on the physical make up of the commodity but on the market for that commidity and the production costs of that commodity.

Hold on, we're not talking about commodification here. We're talking about the simplest form of exchange: one kind of object for another. A cow for a sheep, for example.

For such an exchange to be conceptually possible, the value of object A (the cow) must be perceptible in the body of object B (the sheep). The sheep must become a vehicle for the expression of the value of the cow.

Market and production costs have nothing to do with this primitive form of exchange.

 

[phildwyer]

Hang on a sec. Wasn't one of the big things about empiricism in the early days related to how you can 'rationally' prove pretty much anything, no matter how idiotic?

Not that I know of, if by "the early days" you mean Bacon. Bacon pretty much abandoned reason in favor of sense perception: the fatal wrong turn in the history of Western thought.

Or are you referring to the ancient empiricists?

 

[chainsaw cat]

Buffoon you say? You said you had not mentioned kant but in fact you did, in your opening post no less. It is not illogical for knotted to suggest you have been reading and interpreting kant wrongly.

Phil this thread just keeps on making you look more of an imbecile. Your childish and petty pops at me continually and conveniently ignore any fact or issue. Challengers are deemed 'idiots' and their often relevant objections are ignored proving you have - if not a blind faith in god, then at the very least a blind faith in your own flawed ideas and bloated ego.

Yes but it is laugh out loud funny from start to last (actually I can only vouch for about ten pages but I feel it's ok to extrapolate on essentially trivial matters).

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Actually you can't prove anything at all.

For anyone who cares to skip the rest of Atomic Suplex's posts on this thread, they generally take the form of a hideously distorted Socratic dialogue. Something like this:..(snip.

Oh the irony of this. As the one finger points at the accused, three fingers point back to the accuser.

 

[maomao]

Yes but it is laugh out loud funny from start to last (actually I can only vouch for about ten pages but I feel it's ok to extrapolate on essentially trivial matters).

It's not as good as his (sadly binned) gun thread. That was urban's best thread ever.

 

[Knotted]

Obviously it is not empirically perceptible, but it must be rationally perceptible.

Value is not perceptible. In order to evaluate something you need to apply judgement. You judge things using both rational and empirical resources. But you don't perceive your judgement, you just judge.

Hold on, we're not talking about commodification here. We're talking about the simplest form of exchange: one kind of object for another. A cow for a sheep, for example.

For such an exchange to be conceptually possible, the value of object A (the cow) must be perceptible in the body of object B (the sheep). The sheep must become a vehicle for the expression of the value of the cow.

Market and production costs have nothing to do with this primitive form of exchange.

OK fair enough.

If you exchange a sheep for a cow, that does not mean that you value the two as being the same. It means you have greater need for the cow than the sheep and implicitly the other fellow has a greater need for the sheep than the cow. They are not "perceiving values", they are making value judgements.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

That is correct, yes. Your function on this thread is Resident Buffoon.

And quite frankly it is a function that you have performed rather poorly today. I strongly suggest that you buck up your ideas a bit on the buffoon front. Otherwise I will have no alternative but to ban you, along with Pickman's. And you wouldn't want to be isolated with him, would you?

So you are not going to answer? Is it too difficult for you Phil? You said you didn't mention kant, however you did in your first post of the thread.
If I (and knotted) are being so daft it should be really easy for you to answer.

Why is that Phil? It's a bit like the reason this thread is 100 pages long. It's because you can't admit you are wrong even when it has been spelled out to you over and over and over again.

As usual when you can't answer you fall back on childish insults and lying. Great debating skills numbnuts.

 

[Knotted]

Not that I know of, if by "the early days" you mean Bacon. Bacon pretty much abandoned reason in favor of sense perception: the fatal wrong turn in the history of Western thought.

Or are you referring to the ancient empiricists?

I thought Hume and Kant were more appropriate as examples of critics of metaphysics (including rational theology) than Bacon. Bacon wasn't really an empiricist anyway.

 

[chainsaw cat]

It's not as good as his (sadly binned) gun thread. That was urban's best thread ever.

Faint memories of that - was it the one where Mr Dwyer and several others displayed an impressive ignorance of guns allied with strong opinions on guns?

 

[Knotted]

Now, does everyone agree with me so far? If not, you have until this time tomorrow to raise any questions.

I don't agree - you're conflating immediate perceptions with mediated judgements. But I'm not sure if that's important. You insist that what you say is obvious, so can't we just agree on what is actually obvious - that people do indeed evaluate stuff - and then we can move on without talking about the nature of perception?

On the other hand if the nature of perception really is important to your argument, then we should be discussing that not economics.

 

[phildwyer]

It's not as good as his (sadly binned) gun thread. That was urban's best thread ever.

Innit. Fridge was mad to bin it. WoW at his absolute best.

Still, Atomic Suplex is showing fine potential as a surrogate.

 

[phildwyer]

So you are not going to answer? Is it too difficult for you Phil? You said you didn't mention kant, however you did in your first post of the thread.
If I (and knotted) are being so daft it should be really easy for you to answer.

Why is that Phil? It's a bit like the reason this thread is 100 pages long. It's because you can't admit you are wrong even when it has been spelled out to you over and over and over again.

As usual when you can't answer you fall back on childish insults and lying. Great debating skills numbnuts.

Look, this just isn't good enough I'm afraid.

If you really aspire to the role of Thread Clown, you must at least try to engage with the issues.

For example, what do you make of the argument that the Relative Form of Value must be expressed in the physical body of the object to be exchanged? Does that assertion satisfy your critical faculties or not?

Please try and address the substantive matter at hand. Otherwise, you will soon find yourself banned from this thread, and I will brook no argument.

 

[phildwyer]

OK fair enough.

Great. Despite some minor quibbles, it seems that we are essentially in agreement thus far.

I will wait until tomorrow to see if I hear any more objections. Hearing none (Atomic Suplex excepted, he is of course free to blurt away all he likes), I will then proceed to the next stage of my proof.