invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
The "world of ideas" does not "spring out of a basic human tendency to barter".
*continues whittling arrow*
*continues whittling arrow*
The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
8ball
Decolonise colons!
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
everybody who is posting on this thread is just helping the OP to furiously masturbate himself
i repeat my prediction that NOBODY is going to be convinced of god's existence by the time this thread ends......
i repeat my prediction that NOBODY is going to be convinced of god's existence by the time this thread ends......
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
*looks through store of flint, to find a suitable flake to knap an arrow-head*
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Yeah. I know it's sordid but I'm a little curious to see how the word-game ends.
It seems a bit like you accept a step with some reservations, then there's another step you have reservations about, then several more and as if by magic, a God appears in the argument. Truly a 'God of the gaps' because He seems to have been assembled entirely from gaps in logic.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Better than him interfering with the women and livestock, though.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
God is Dead
-Nietzche
-Nietzche
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
free spirit
more tea vicar?
actually, I have a problem with this.
I guess it depends on how you interpret the phrase 'world of ideas', but I'd think there'd be a fairly strong case to be made for thoughts / ideas significantly predating barter, and coming from the much more basic thoughts about survival eg I'm cold, I'm hot, I'm thirsty, I'm hungry etc. and the associated ideas of how to mitigate this problem, ie. where to find food, water, shelter, warmth, along with the instinct to reproduce.
Bartering is but one form of meeting these needs, unless you're extending the term 'bartering' to cover the thought process involved in time motion type thinking about the relative benefits of fishing vs picking fruit from a tree to satisfy the need to eat.
I'd agree that bartering would have had a place in the development of both language and thought process, particularly the idea of the perceived value of a 'thing' to be bartered, as well as in the notions of private property and wealth.
as well as quality and quantity, there are other factors that would have to also be taken into account when determining the barter rate of the trade, such as;
- the relative need / desire each person has for the item they're trading
- the relative abundance of alternative soures of supply for each item being traded / bartered.
- the mentality of the people doing the trade - ie whether they have capitalist pig dog mentality, or love thy neighbour mentality
- come combination of the man hours vs land input required to produce the goods / animal to be bartered.
IF you meant that 'barter creates several distinct ways of looking at things, 2 of which are quality and quantity', then I'd go along with that.
However, I'd think that a rational proof of anything would need all steps to be pretty carefully worder, particularly when you're asking people to agree each step as you go along without being able to see what logical conclusions you're trying to draw from each step, and therefore make a judgement of whether or not it's important to the overall proof to challenge a poorly phrased statement or simply let it pass because it's not important to the overall proof.
Basically I think the way you're approching this is likely to be intellectually dishonest in that your proof is largely reliant on people not being able to know which bits of each statement you make are important to the overall proof in advance, and therefore whether it's worth arguing the toss over some point that could be just an irrelevent niggle, or could be central to the entire case you're building.
anyway, I guess I'll tag along and see where you're going with this for a bit
free spirit
more tea vicar?
this is what I was getting at
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
*sings and dances with entire tribe whilst moon is full*
Corax
Luke 5:16
I agree that value-exchange reveals an abstract concept that is brought into being through human 'observation' of those objects.
That much seems quite straightforward really.
That's not the only quality that is brought into existence by the action of human observation though.
For example, the concept of something being 'good' or 'bad' is revealed through the act of human observation. People like sunshine, which then takes on the quality of being 'good'. People don't like rain, which then takes on the quality of being 'bad'. It may be vice versa for someone living in a drought zone, but that makes no difference, as value-exchange is also mobile. Different people will swop a different number of cows for lambs, depending upon whether they have a need for meat, leather, wool, or a sex life more commonly found West of Hereford.
Another example is more exclusive to humans - that of 'funny'. A carrot shaped like a duck is not 'funny' in itself. A rabbit that sees that carrot will eat it without even an amused smirk. The carrot only becomes 'funny' when observed by a human being. 'Funny' is the product of human interaction, and is only brought into existence by that observation.
The same point can be made for many other qualities - 'utility', 'scary', 'boring' and so on.
A potential response from Phil - that these qualities are merely a subset of 'value'. They together make up what is 'value', and that 'value' in itself remains unique.
I've got a picture on the wall drawn by the 5 year old. It's a series of crudely drawn lines on a sheet of paper. Of itself, that is all it is. However, when I look at it, I see a face (my face apparantly). In actual fact, it doesn't represent me, or any other human that has ever walked this earth in the slightest. It bears absolutely no resemblance to a real human face. Yet when it is observed by me, that is what it is. That quality is only brought into existence through my observation of it. That in itself does not give it 'value'. That quality is therefore not a subset of 'value', it is distinct.
I don't know if this has bearing on your argument Phil, as apparently after 4 years and 100 odd pages we're yet to hear any advancement of your process. So I'm asking now, is it necessary for your argument that 'value' is in some way unique? If so, I'm not in agreement.
And as you can tell from my tagline, I'm already one of those weirdos that has already acknowledged their relationship with the flying spaghetti monster.
That much seems quite straightforward really.
That's not the only quality that is brought into existence by the action of human observation though.
For example, the concept of something being 'good' or 'bad' is revealed through the act of human observation. People like sunshine, which then takes on the quality of being 'good'. People don't like rain, which then takes on the quality of being 'bad'. It may be vice versa for someone living in a drought zone, but that makes no difference, as value-exchange is also mobile. Different people will swop a different number of cows for lambs, depending upon whether they have a need for meat, leather, wool, or a sex life more commonly found West of Hereford.
Another example is more exclusive to humans - that of 'funny'. A carrot shaped like a duck is not 'funny' in itself. A rabbit that sees that carrot will eat it without even an amused smirk. The carrot only becomes 'funny' when observed by a human being. 'Funny' is the product of human interaction, and is only brought into existence by that observation.
The same point can be made for many other qualities - 'utility', 'scary', 'boring' and so on.
A potential response from Phil - that these qualities are merely a subset of 'value'. They together make up what is 'value', and that 'value' in itself remains unique.
I've got a picture on the wall drawn by the 5 year old. It's a series of crudely drawn lines on a sheet of paper. Of itself, that is all it is. However, when I look at it, I see a face (my face apparantly). In actual fact, it doesn't represent me, or any other human that has ever walked this earth in the slightest. It bears absolutely no resemblance to a real human face. Yet when it is observed by me, that is what it is. That quality is only brought into existence through my observation of it. That in itself does not give it 'value'. That quality is therefore not a subset of 'value', it is distinct.
I don't know if this has bearing on your argument Phil, as apparently after 4 years and 100 odd pages we're yet to hear any advancement of your process. So I'm asking now, is it necessary for your argument that 'value' is in some way unique? If so, I'm not in agreement.
And as you can tell from my tagline, I'm already one of those weirdos that has already acknowledged their relationship with the flying spaghetti monster.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I suspect this kind of 'proof' is in the offing here too, just a longer and wordier one.
These games can be fun but they don't mean very much. I came up with one of my own to annoy the 'consciousness is an illusion' pop-pseudo-neuroscience brigade:
1: You say consciousness is an illusion
2: Therefore you are saying you are conscious that consciousness is an illusion.
3: Therefore your claimed consciousness that consciousness is an illusion must itself be an illusion.
4: Therefore consciousness is not an illusion.
All very silly.
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
and more importantly, totally unable to convince anyone
i bet nobody EVER became religious because they heard a philosopher arguing for God's existence
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
The matter with me - is that you never answer any question that proves you are wrong, you squirm around and try to hide this by lying, and being offensive.
Obscenities??? Take a look at what I have written to you, then take a little look at what your responses have been. It is quite clear to all who has been laying down the obscenities.
You could always answer his question.
I dunno, might help . . .
Well I suppose its worth a try. But first, he'll have to answer my question.
That's fair enough, right?
So, Atomic Suplex: how much does your Mum charge for a blow-job?
To everyone else, thanks for your contributions. I'll respond tomorrow.
editor
hiraethified
revol68
what, fucking what?
since when were your mum jokes across the line, seems like very selective enforcement.
Hey now. How am I supposed to prove the existence of God if I can't say "yo momma" now and again?
Seriously, I've asked Atomic Suplex to bugger off this thread many, many times now. All he does is cause more disruption. Obviously he's got no interest in the discussion, and less ability to participate in it. What does anyone think he's doing here?
Corax
Luke 5:16
Yeah, I'm with revol on this.
Ed? I know it's your ball and that, but really?
Corax
Luke 5:16
Does it? Doesn't quite fit with your stated intention for this thread.
Stop fucking around and answer the questions raised Phil.
editor
hiraethified
I haven't seen any others here that suggested similar things. Have you reported any?
Dwyer's comment got reported and as far as I'm concerned posters making comments like "how much does your Mum charge for a blow-job?" in the 'theory, philosophy & history' forum are bang out of order.
After Atomic Suplex had claimed, over and over again, that he never reports posts.
Pathetic.
I will, I do appreciate them, but it'll have to be tomorrow. And probably quite late in the day tomorrow too. It's a big holiday here.
- Status
Similar threads
