The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[kyser_soze]

OT but who is/was Travis Bickle?

Vietnam vet Travis Bickle is 26, a loner in the mean streets of New York City, slipping slowly into isolation and violent misanthropy. In solving his insomnia by driving a yellow cab on the night shift, he grows increasingly disgusted by the low-lifes that hang out at night: "Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets." His touching attempts to woo Betsy, a Senator's campaign worker, turn sour when he takes her to a porn movie on their first date. He even fails in his attempt to persuade child prostitute Iris to desert her pimp and return to her parents and school. Driven to the edge by powerlessness, he buys four handguns and sets out to assassinate the Senator, heading for the infamy of a `lone crazed gunman'...

...from IMDB

Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up.

 

[Brainaddict]

aha, thanks kyser - the penny drops.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Vietnam vet Travis Bickle is 26, a loner in the mean streets of New York City, slipping slowly into isolation and violent misanthropy. In solving his insomnia by driving a yellow cab on the night shift, he grows increasingly disgusted by the low-lifes that hang out at night: "Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets." His touching attempts to woo Betsy, a Senator's campaign worker, turn sour when he takes her to a porn movie on their first date. He even fails in his attempt to persuade child prostitute Iris to desert her pimp and return to her parents and school. Driven to the edge by powerlessness, he buys four handguns and sets out to assassinate the Senator, heading for the infamy of a `lone crazed gunman'...

...from IMDB

John Hinckley's favourite movie. He shot Reagan to try and impress Jodie Foster who played the child prostitute in the movie. Didn't impress her much I don't think.

 

[kyser_soze]

cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets

 

[Brainaddict]

Actually there is a very good and concrete example that proves (and I do mean proves) Phil wrong about the inherent nature of use-value.

It is quite possible that within some space of time the entire human population will be either lactose intolerant or vegan. At which point the cow's milk will have zero use value for humans. Therefore, the use-value is not inherent in the cow, but is a value projected onto it by humans.

QED.

yep, that's probably the simplest and most elegant refutation - though we were all saying pretty much the same thing.

we're not going to let you get away with 'inherent value' phil - you could pull all sorts of tricks with it if we did. but the main reason we won't let you get away with it is that *it doesn't exist*.

 

[laptop]

He's omnipresent. Or will be, when phil finishes his pie.

Does that mean that the deity is inherent in the gastric juices and what follows, but not in the pie?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

*cough*

post 27

*cough*

 

[Brainaddict]

Does that mean that the deity is inherent in the gastric juices and what follows, but not in the pie?

No you poor fool, it means that the *quality of steakness*, once incorporated into a human being, is transmogrified into *inherent tummy value*, which of course is the first step in proving the existence of god. Not that you'd ever understand that, or in fact any of my arguments, for you are a fool, and a poor one at that, as I have just proved.

 

[TeeJay]

At what point in human evolution did humans become conscious of God? Would it be possible for other animals to become conscious of Him? Has He been sat around for aeons waiting for human consciousness to evolve?

*Directs goldenecitrone back to the original evolution thread that prompted phildwyer to start this one*

 

[Doomsy]

Still waiting for a response.

Maybe I need to 'sex up' my argument?

*thinks*

OK, so there's two identical strippers, right...

 

[kyser_soze]

Actually, instead of using the cow, why hasn't phil been using lap dancing as an analogy for God???

 

[ViolentPanda]

Actually, instead of using the cow, why hasn't phil been using lap dancing as an analogy for God???

Because phil, aside from being virginal, chaste and incredibly well-endowed (ego-wise), gets all hot and bothered at the thought of women writhing in a provocative manner, thus distracting him from his philosophical ponderings.

I think that once he gets laid he'll grok what G-d really is.

 

[phildwyer]

The value of the cow is perceptible in the body of the lamb?

In any case, the value ascribed to an object isn't purely derivable from the object itself, or an object for which it is being exchanged, that would be silly. There is always going to be reference to factors outside of those objects, not least details of the actor ascribing value.

For convenience, I will now begin answering your objections one by one. Fridge has drawn our attention to this post that he made ages ago. I don't see his point though, obviously value of any kind only exists for human beings. Or are you talking about "price" rather than "value?" Please clarify and I'll respond.

 

[phildwyer]

I would suggest you take this up with dictionary.com who define 'inherent' thus:

in·her·ent Audio pronunciation of "inherent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.

Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

in·her·ent (n-hrnt, -hr-)
adj.

Occurring as a natural part or consequence.

Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: in-'hir-&nt, in-'her-
Function: adjective
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature <an infant's inherent ability to learn to walk> —in·her·ent·ly adverb

inherent

adj 1: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; "the Ptolemaic system with its built-in concept of periodicity"; "a constitutional inability to tell the truth" [syn: built-in, constitutional, inbuilt, integral] 2: present at birth but not necessarily hereditary; acquired during fetal development [syn: congenital, inborn, innate] 3: in the nature of something though not readily apparent; "shortcomings inherent in our approach"; "an underlying meaning" [syn: implicit in(p), underlying]

Your dictionary says the same as me. That which is inherent in a thing is "an essential constituent or characteristic" that thing. It is not the *essence* of that thing, but a quality of that essence. See?

 

[phildwyer]

You don't get it do you? For something to be inherent it has to be inseparable from the cow right?
All you need to do to remove the value from a cow is to remove the humans involved with it. It now no longer has any value.
The value is not, therefore, inherent.

Wrong again. The fact that the value only exists for human beings does not mean that it is not inherent in the object. Let me put it another way: use-value does not exist apart from the physical body of the object. The usefulness of a cow in giving milk does not exist apart from the body of the cow. It is thus an inherent property of the cow. Exchange-value, in contrast, is not an inherent property of the cow but a *relational* property: it is bestowed upon the cow by virtue of its *relation* to the lamb.

 

[phildwyer]

Travis Bickle style

I see you in the Harvey Keitel role actually.

 

[phildwyer]

Actually there is a very good and concrete example that proves (and I do mean proves) Phil wrong about the inherent nature of use-value.

It is quite possible that within some space of time the entire human population will be either lactose intolerant or vegan. At which point the cow's milk will have zero use value for humans. Therefore, the use-value is not inherent in the cow, but is a value projected onto it by humans.

QED.

No, it is *exchange-value* which is "projected" onto the cow, if you want to use Freudian terminology. The cow's use-value is inseparable from the cow, or from any other thing. Look, its bleeding obvious, Christ knows why you guys are struggling with this idea so much. You can't use a thing if its not there. That's ALL. Its usefulness to you is dependent on the physical presence of its material body. THAT'S ALL! Is this not obvious?

 

[phildwyer]

Ok, as promised, I shall show that God's existence cannot be proven through logic alone.

Imagine there were two universes, identical in every way except spatio-temporal location. One universe came about through the actions of a Creator, the other through the methods described by science. Call them U1 and U2 (which is which is not important at this point).

The same logical arguments will hold true in both.

Therefore, it is impossible to distinguish one from the other through logic alone.

Therefore it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God through logic alone.

If you disagree, please let me know which universe is U1 and which is U2, if you can't then you are clearly unable to back up your assertion.

Thankyou and goodnight.

But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God. Therefore if there were two identical universes whose logics were identical, they would *both* have been created by God. It is impossible for such a universe to have come about by what you call "the methods described by science." And anyway, what methods are these? "Science" has no way to account for the existence of the universe, or even for the existence of life. But I do.

 

[phildwyer]

Anyway, I'm knackered so that's yer lot for tonight. Fruitloop, Articlu8, JonathanS2, Axon, Andrewwyld, Comstock, Azrael23 and the rest of you who still have objections pending, I haven't forgotten you, and I will get to you as soon as I can. Tomorrow I am going gambling in Atlantic City, so I will not be able to deal with you until Sunday, and most probably it will be Sunday night, which is Monday morning for you. But I have promised to answer *all* rational objections, and my word is my bond. I will ensure that all reasonable people are completely convinced by what I have to say.

 

[Cid]

For convenience, I will now begin answering your objections one by one. Fridge has drawn our attention to this post that he made ages ago. I don't see his point though, obviously value of any kind only exists for human beings. Or are you talking about "price" rather than "value?" Please clarify and I'll respond.

Bollocks, most species have at least some sense of 'value' - a squirrel will not stash bad nuts, a cat will exchange affection in order to obtain nicer food for itself etc etc. Your assumption that civilization is built on trade/exchange/communication/whatever is also a fallacy, for one thing there is no way you can prove it, and secondly it would seem far more likely that it is a complex amalgum of responses to environment/needs etc. Or do you think communication is only found in humans too?

But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God. Therefore if there were two identical universes whose logics were identical, they would *both* have been created by God. It is impossible for such a universe to have come about by what you call "the methods described by science." And anyway, what methods are these? "Science" has no way to account for the existence of the universe, or even for the existence of life. But I do.

To asign the value 'God' to an unknown quantity does not prove it's ('it' because it is impossible that an omnipotent being could be defined by sex) existence. You are substituting one 'impossibility' (or in this case I would say an incomprehensible unknown) with a sociologically imposed value that you have no proof for. Equally I could say that the universe was created by chi (as in the buddhist life-force concept) and 'prove' it using your theory. Similarly it would be easy to 'prove' its nonexistence by talking about the impossibilty of an omniscient being that allows its creations to feel pain as, by definition, it will feel all this pain or the impossibility of the same being requiring worship etc etc ad nauseam. These are no more proofs than yours, but you take my point (well, you probably don't, but that's your problem).

 

[Brainaddict]

Let me put it another way: use-value does not exist apart from the physical body of the object.

This may be true, *but* the physical body of the object can exist without the use-value.
The fact that the use-value cannot exist independent of the cow is irrelevant. The cow can exist without the use-value. This is because the use-value is a result of human judgement, not a part of the cowness of the cow.

This is so obvious I can't believe you're struggling with it (well, by this point in the thread I can I guess...). The concept of use-value for an object cannot exist without someone to *use* the object. If there is no user, there is no use-value. The fact that the use-value cannot develop an independent existence and go off on its own to have babies does *not* mean that it can exist independently of human judgments. Whereas a cow *can* exist independently of human judgements. It could go off into the mountains and live out its whole life without ever being seen by a human, and its use-value would be zero.

 

[Valve]

You can't use a thing if its not there. That's ALL. Its usefulness to you is dependent on the physical presence of its material body. THAT'S ALL! Is this not obvious?

You have conflated 'use' with the use in 'usefulness' i.e., it is one thing for something to have a use-- and thus the ability to be used, whereas the thing's 'usefulness' to one is not dependent on the physical presence of its material body (your ability to 'use' it is, however); an object can be useful to one but not present.

 

[Jo/Joe]

But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God.

This is no more then the 'it must be so' arguement of ID. Evidence free and ideological driven. Does it not occur to you that our capacity for logic reflects the ordered world that our ancestors interacted with over millions of years? Science can't explain pre-big bang, but it does a dman good job thereafter.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

For convenience, I will now begin answering your objections one by one. Fridge has drawn our attention to this post that he made ages ago. I don't see his point though, obviously value of any kind only exists for human beings. Or are you talking about "price" rather than "value?" Please clarify and I'll respond.

Value. Lots of other people are dealing with the same approximate point though (i.e. that value of any sort is not solely intrinsic to the object being valued).

 

[Jo/Joe]

Its usefulness to you is dependent on the physical presence of its material body. THAT'S ALL! Is this not obvious?

Not striclty true. Something only needs to allegedly exist for it to be useful.

 

[Valve]

Not striclty true. Something only needs to allegedly exist for it to be useful.

indeed: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3511629&postcount=442

 

[Loki]

Tomorrow I am going gambling in Atlantic City

Gambling is not something God approves of!

Timothy 6:10; Hebrews, Proverbs 13:11; 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10, Luke 6:38; 2 Corinthians 9:7

It contravenes Jesus' command that we should love our neighbors as we love God. Since we would never try to gain at God's expense, then we certainly should not try to gain at our neighbor's expense. It doesn't matter how much control a gambler has or how much the gambler is able to lose - what matters is the gambler's interest in receiving an undeserved gain while others at the same time lose. Gambling is, then, a violation of Jesus' most basic commandment for humanity.

Heathen!!!!

 

[TeeJay]

Exchange value between rabbit and cow - aka trying to talk to phildwyer...

 

[Brainaddict]

at teejay

 

[In Bloom]

But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God.

Prove it