The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[Corax]

Well it's a table tennis of sorts, I seriously doubt the intellectual part of it though.

Meant in the loosest sense!

 

[phildwyer]

Dwyer's not any worse than a lot of people on these boards and atleast he is consistent, he gives it out and is prepared to take it, I have much more disdain for wankers who go running to the mods.

Well I certainly agree that it’s a shame Atomic Suplex felt he had to go crying to the Mods again over a bit of light-hearted banter. But let us hope that he has learned his lesson now, and that he will finally leave us to get on with our debate in peace.

 

[phildwyer]

No, it just needs to be a component of your internal representation of object B and your ideas about it. You could be shown a picture of object A and still think it is worth the same as object B, or just have object B mentioned in conversation.

You could, but that is not what I am talking about here. Here I am talking about the most basic form of exchange imaginable--the foundation of exchange if you will. I am talking about the exchange of one kind of object (eg a sheep) for another (eg a cow). Please resist the temptation to get ahead of my argument.

Value is not perceptible in the physical body but is a component of the concept (ie. the signified).

Again, this is clearly true of any large-scale exchange, and I will get to that later. But it is not true of the simple form of exchange I am discussing at this stage. Is it?

 

[newme]

This thread is always good for a laugh anyway

 

[phildwyer]

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.

Yes, it is necessary for my argument that value is unique. I’m arguing that value is the source of the human ability to conceptualize—the original concept, if you will.

Your points about ‘good,’ ‘bad,’ ‘funny’ and so on are irrelevant to this point. These are value judgments that are attached to concepts, they are not values in themselves.

As to your five year-old’s picture, you are wrong to say that “it doesn’t represent me.” It certainly does represent you. It may not resemble you, but that is something altogether different. Picasso’s Guernica represents an air raid, it does not resemble one.

In fact this example illustrates my point rather well. A sheep does not in any way resemble a cow. But a sheep can certainly represent a cow for the purposes of exchange. Indeed if a sheep is to be exchanged for a cow, such a representation must take place. But, as we see from the lack of physical resemblance, this representation is not remotely material. This representation has no physical existence. It exists only within the human mind.

Are you all with me so far?

8-ball and others, if I do not address your points here, it is only because I feel that they do not speak to the very simple point I am making here. Once again, I must caution you not to get ahead of or try to anticipate my argument. At this stage I am arguing only that the value of the sheep (or object A) must be discernible in the physical body of the cow (or object B) if the two are to be exchanged. I am speaking only of the exchange of one object for one other object, nothing more at this stage.

Do you agree that your objections were not addressed to this very basic point?

If so, I think we have finally reached a stage where we are all in agreement, and we can now move on to the next stage of my proof. However as is customary on this thread, I shall wait a full twenty-four (24) hours to see if anyone has any problems with my argument up until now.

Oh just one more thing:

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.

In my view it is advisable to avoid using that phrase. It trivializes the debate gives succor to those atheists who labor under the misapprehension that God is some kind of physical Being. I will let it go this time, but in future that phrase is not to be used on my thread.

 

[newme]

the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster

what are you the thread police?

 

[phildwyer]

the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster

what are you the thread police?

Do me a favor eh? Don't make this too easy for me? You take all the fun out of it.

HOW CAN PEOPLE BE SO FUCKING STUPID is the question I like to ask myself at times like this.

 

[newme]

Do me a favor eh? Don't make this too easy for me? You take all the fun out of it.

HOW CAN PEOPLE BE SO FUCKING STUPID is the question I like to ask myself at times like this.

I just wanted to make a point about how you seem to demand people adhere to your requests but completely fail to succesfully address anyone else's.

But since your apparently going to be a dick about it.

Its been 4 years on this thread and you've not begun to get even slightly anywhere with this argument other than even further up your own arse than where you began, frankly im beginning to wonder if you wont choke soon if you arent careful.

And your own pointlessly capitalised question is what most people think whenever they see your posts

Have a nice day

 

[phildwyer]

I just wanted to make a point about how you seem to demand people adhere to your requests but completely fail to succesfully address anyone else's.

I know. I got that bit.

Whereas I was laying a subtle trap for the next arrogant twit to stumble upon. OK, maybe it wasn't all that subtle, but believe me, one of these idiots would have fallen into it (my money was on Atomic Suplex actually).

And now you have ruined it. Thanks a lot. I like you though, so no hard feelings.

 

[newme]

I am somewhat baffled, why not simply lay out the proof you believe you have without swiping at people which surely just contracts from your points?

Frankly I dont believe the main concept behind the thread, but have returned as I was interested to see the reasoning behind it, simply laying out the arguments and letting people make the decisions themselves would be more beneficial to your reasoning than being sidetracked and having there be running battles throughout the thread. There appears to be a number of people who are open to actually reading it and examining the reasoning if it were presented and the distractions and side swiping avoided wherever possible.

 

[phildwyer]

I am somewhat baffled, why not simply lay out the proof you believe you have without swiping at people which surely just contracts from your points?

Frankly I dont believe the main concept behind the thread, but have returned as I was interested to see the reasoning behind it, simply laying out the arguments and letting people make the decisions themselves would be more beneficial to your reasoning than being sidetracked and having there be running battles throughout the thread. There appears to be a number of people who are open to actually reading it and examining the reasoning if it were presented and the distractions and side swiping avoided wherever possible.

True enough.

I have actually asked the side-swipers to leave, many times. Your criticisms might better be addressed to them, if you don't mind my saying so.

But I am determined to take this argument in stages, soliciting the assent of all readers at each stage. When we get to the end of the proof, I don't want anybody to be able to claim that they remain unconvinced, or that they disagree with an early part of my argument. My intention here is to leave no room whatsoever for doubters.

 

[newme]

True enough.

I have actually asked the side-swipers to leave, many times. Your criticisms might better be addressed to them, if you don't mind my saying so.

But I am determined to take this argument in stages, soliciting the assent of all readers at each stage. When we get to the end of the proof, I don't want anybody to be able to claim that they remain unconvinced, or that they disagree with an early part of my argument. My intention here is to leave no room whatsoever for doubters.

Asking them to leave frankly acheives nothing, much as them asking you to leave would acheive nothing. Its hardly been one sided in either direction, there has been back and forth.

You are never going to get everyone agreeing with you at every stage. Regardless of what the topic is, no one argument will have every single person in agreement. Which Im imagining is why after over 100 pages this appears to still be unfinished. Regardless of whether no one objects at a stage, someone who hasnt read it or didnt speak up at the time, or simply kept quiet to hear the rest of the theory, will speak up at the end and disagree. Expecting 100% agreement and participation is nonsensical.

No situation has nor should have no room for doubters, especially on a highly theoretical subject as this one. Every theory everywhere has doubters. People who dont agree with one or more stages or even the entire idea of it could be adverse to their own beliefs. Attempting to have a complete blanket of agreement at every stage will simply mean this thread progresses another 100 pages and still isnt at an end.

 

[5t3IIa]

Well I certainly agree that it’s a shame Atomic Suplex felt he had to go crying to the Mods again over a bit of light-hearted banter. But let us hope that he has learned his lesson now, and that he will finally leave us to get on with our debate in peace.

Stop trying to bait me, you nutjob

 

[phildwyer]

Stop trying to bait me, you nutjob

Esa muchacha es una chota grande pero la quiero como uno hijo de puta.

 

[5t3IIa]

Esa muchacha es una chota grande pero la quiero como uno hijo de puta.

Ugh

 

[phildwyer]

Ugh

!Horale hiyna! !Representa!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

When a cow is exchanged for a sheep, the value of the cow becomes perceptible in the body of the sheep. But the value has no material existence. It is merely an idea, an image. Thus we see how the world of ideas springs out of the basic human tendency to barter..

This might be one of the more unusual leaps of a logical chasm that I've come across.

 

[Jonti]

Yes, it is necessary for my argument that value is unique. I’m arguing that value is the source of the human ability to conceptualize—the original concept, if you will.

They do say money is the religion of the USA. It seems our faux American has swallowed that idea, hook, line, and sinker.

So far, all that phildwyer has shown is that he is a mindless slave to the mercenary mindset!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Belief can be rational I believe?

But faith: not necessarily. And faith is the foundation of religious belief. At least, the christian religion, the one with which I'm somewhat familiar.

 

[Pickman's model]

When a cow is exchanged for a sheep, the value of the cow becomes perceptible in the body of the sheep. But the value has no material existence. It is merely an idea, an image. Thus we see how the world of ideas springs out of the basic human tendency to barter.

what happens if someone has both cows and sheep and hasn't yet thought about bartering?

or, indeed, what happened before the domestication of cows and sheep? if this is what your proof is based on, there are more than a few elements of shakiness to its foundations.

 

[Pickman's model]

I have actually asked the side-swipers to leave, many times.

post up your proof or stfu

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, it is necessary for my argument that value is unique. I’m arguing that value is the source of the human ability to conceptualize—the original concept, if you will.

What about this, then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7988169.stm

 

[phildwyer]

post up your proof or stfu

Mira vato en este threado se tiraron los puercos ese.

 

[Pickman's model]

Mira vato en este threado se tiraron los puercos ese.

job tvojmadj!

 

[Jonti]

Esa muchacha es una chota grande pero la quiero como uno hijo de puta.

Desagradable, abusivo incluso, en dos idiomas. ¡Grande!

 

[phildwyer]

Hokay mi gatos locos, I gots to get paid. But I assure you that I shall address all the points you raise in due course. Unless of course la madre de.... but no.

 

[Pickman's model]

Desagradable, abusivo incluso, en dos idiomas. ¡Grande!

what's dwyer's post mean then?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There's a philosopher of religion, Pojman, who talks about the existence of faith without belief:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=NB4...onepage&q=pojman faith without belief&f=false

 

[phildwyer]

what's dwyer's post mean then?

Plesedonttellhimpleasedontellhimpleasedonttellhim

 

[Jonti]

what's dwyer's post mean then?

Nothing, of course; except that dwyer wants to demonstrate his prowess in Spanish.

But this may help.