Scientific Proof Of God

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Hermit » Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:46 am

superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 am
Everyone is deluded except for him. WRONG


Dawkins "...there is actually not the slightest thread of evidence that any kind of supernatural being exists."
Craig: "There are quite a number of different arguments for the existence of God." Lists 6 arguments. Evidence provided: 0.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:57 am

Svartalf wrote:Not by much though, give me a whole deer, and I'll give you a branch with my new invention, fire, on it.
Evidence for barter economies ranges from the speculative to the anecdotal.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Svartalf » Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:14 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:57 am
Svartalf wrote:Not by much though, give me a whole deer, and I'll give you a branch with my new invention, fire, on it.
Evidence for barter economies ranges from the speculative to the anecdotal.
WTF? Archeological proof of long range commercial exchanges can be found dating back to at least the neolithic, long before money was a concept, much less a reality.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
superuniverse
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by superuniverse » Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:21 pm

Hermit wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:46 am
superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 am
Everyone is deluded except for him. WRONG


Dawkins "...there is actually not the slightest thread of evidence that any kind of supernatural being exists."
Craig: "There are quite a number of different arguments for the existence of God." Lists 6 arguments. Evidence provided: 0.
Go back to bed, old man...

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:29 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:57 am
Svartalf wrote:Not by much though, give me a whole deer, and I'll give you a branch with my new invention, fire, on it.
Evidence for barter economies ranges from the speculative to the anecdotal.
WTF? Archeological proof of long range commercial exchanges can be found dating back to at least the neolithic, long before money was a concept, much less a reality.
Ah, but your comment was in relation to capitalism - specifically as a kind of foundational social principle of value exchange. You've even used the term 'commercial exchanges' there in relation to past societies and cultures, implying that people have always exchanged surplus material assets of roughly equal value (at least to the parties involved). How do we know that material exchanges between parties have always proceeded under these kinds of mutual assumptions about the exchange value of things - that people have always traded in things of surplus material value, as it were, rather than engaging in, say, gift economies or systems based on honour and obligation?

Ug and Nug were smoking hemp together one day when Ug said, "That's a nice cow you've got there." To which Nug replied, "You like the cow? It is a fine beast. It's milk is sweet and it has given us seven strong calves in seven seasons. You like the cow? You must have the cow. Please, it is yours."
"Oh no Nug, How could I deny you the fruits of your labour? I do not deserve such kindnrss. I couldn't possibly accept such a fabulous beast."
"But Ug, are we not friends? Good friends? Please, it would honour me greatly if you accepted the cow, and it pains me greatly that you would even consider refusing it."
"I'm so sorry Nug. I meant no disrespect. The honour is all mine. I am humbled to accept the cow you and your family have taken such care to raise into that fine beast yonder. You are a skilled herdsman and a good friend Nug. Thanks pal." Their bonds of social affection mutually assured they spark up another bowl of hemp.

And come the winter when Ug slaughters the cow Nug's family are invited to the feast of course. And in the spring when the roof of Nug's house needs repairing it is only natural that his good friend Ug is there to lend a hand. And if Ug doesn't invite Nug to the feast or doesn't help with the roof then word quickly gets around and he and his family end up having a very hard year.

If we're to consider this kind of arrangement in terms of a commercial exchange then who has got the better end of the deal? Whom does it profit most? Out of Ug and Nug who has been overpaid and who has been undersold; who is maximising the exchange value of an asset and who realising the use value of an asset? In short, 'commercial exchange' as we understand it - as the trading in items of surplus material value - doesn't seem to apply. That would only apply in two settings: 1) if Nug held a monopoly on cattle husbandry and Ug had the monopoly on roof repairs, and 2) if Ug and Nug were independent parties who were both unable to meet their immediate and necessary material needs. So where does this notion of 'commercial exchange' as being a foundational principle of human social relations actually come from?

You might find this article an interesting and diverting read: Give It Away, David Graeber, 2008 (PDF).
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Hermit » Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:37 pm

superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:21 pm
Hermit wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:46 am
superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 am
Everyone is deluded except for him. WRONG


Dawkins "...there is actually not the slightest thread of evidence that any kind of supernatural being exists."
Craig: "There are quite a number of different arguments for the existence of God." Lists 6 arguments. Evidence provided: 0.
Go back to bed, old man...
Your reply is as reasoned as I expected.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
superuniverse
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by superuniverse » Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:37 pm

The trouble here is that if we provide evidence it will lead to your complete annihilation. Do you still see want to see?

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Svartalf » Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:49 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:29 pm
Svartalf wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:57 am
Svartalf wrote:Not by much though, give me a whole deer, and I'll give you a branch with my new invention, fire, on it.
Evidence for barter economies ranges from the speculative to the anecdotal.
WTF? Archeological proof of long range commercial exchanges can be found dating back to at least the neolithic, long before money was a concept, much less a reality.
Trigger Warning!!!1! :
Ah, but your comment was in relation to capitalism - specifically as a kind of foundational social principle of value exchange. You've even used the term 'commercial exchanges' there in relation to past societies and cultures, implying that people have always exchanged surplus material assets of roughly equal value (at least to the parties involved). How do we know that material exchanges between parties have always proceeded under these kinds of mutual assumptions about the exchange value of things - that people have always traded in things of surplus material value, as it were, rather than engaging in, say, gift economies or systems based honour and obligation?

Ug and Nug were smoking hemp together one day when Ug said, "That's a nice cow you've got there." To which Nug replied, "You like the cow? It is a fine beast. It's milk is sweet and it has given us seven strong calves in seven seasons. You like the cow? You must have the cow. Please, it is yours."
"Oh no Nug, How could I deny you the fruits of your labour? I do not deserve such kindnrss. I couldn't possibly accept such a fabulous beast."
"But Ug, are we not friends? Good friends? Please, it would honour me greatly if you accepted the cow, and it pains me greatly that you would even consider refusing it."
"I'm so sorry Nug. I meant no disrespect. The honour is all mine. I am humbled to accept the cow you and your family have taken such care to raise into that fine beast yonder. You are a skilled herdsman and a good friend Nug. Thanks pal." Their bonds of social affection mutually assured they spark up another bowl of hemp.

And come the winter when Ug slaughters the cow Nug's family are invited to the feast of course. And in the spring when the roof of Nug's house needs repairing it is only natural that his good friend Ug is there to lend a hand. And if Ug doesn't invite Nug to the feast or doesn't help with the roof then word quickly gets around and he and his family end up having a very hard year.

If we're to consider this kind of arrangement in terms of a commercial exchange then who has got the better end of the deal? Whom does it profit most? Out of Ug and Nug who has been overpaid and who has been undersold; who is maximising the exchange value of an asset and who realising the use value of an asset? In short, 'commercial exchange' as we understand it - as the trading in items of surplus material value - doesn't seem to apply. That would only apply in two settings: 1) if Nug held a monopoly on cattle husbandry and Ug had the monopoly on roof repairs, and 2) if Ug and Nug were independent parties who were both unable to meet their immediate and necessary material needs. So where does this notion of 'commercial exchange' as being a foundational principle of human social relations actually come from?
You might find this article an interesting and diverting read: Give It Away, David Graeber, 2008 (PDF).
Well, you know, unless the 'exchange' is done at sword point (or business end of whatever weapon is used), at which point it can't be called a commercial exchange, it is fairly safe to assume that whatever goods people gave in exchange for something were stuff they felt they could live without, and that the type/amount of goods given were regarded, if not of properly equivalent value, at least as an acceptable exchange. It is quite possible that either (or both parties) felt they conned the other, receiving hard to get goods of great value/usefulness in exchange for worthless stuff you could get just by bowing and picking them up (say, seashells on a beach), but of course, the value given such goods by the other party means THEY didn't feel swindled. It is also possible that either party felt the other had the better deal, but no so much better they'd refuse the exchange.

As to gift economies, and honor system (are you referring to mass giftings and potlatch stuff meant to improve one's status by massive expense?) Those are generally restricted to folk of a common cultural area, and thus seldom extend into long range trade.

Also, you'll notice that my first remark was not about exchange/gifting of goods, but about new technologies, like fire (and later pottery, agriculture, ways to make better tools...), which of course would have been guarded more closely, and not distributed to people who are not already close friends and allies.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Svartalf » Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:51 pm

Hermit wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:37 pm
superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:21 pm
Hermit wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:46 am
superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 am
Everyone is deluded except for him. WRONG


Dawkins "...there is actually not the slightest thread of evidence that any kind of supernatural being exists."
Craig: "There are quite a number of different arguments for the existence of God." Lists 6 arguments. Evidence provided: 0.
Go back to bed, old man...
Your reply is as reasoned as I expected.
I'm ready to go back to bed, but only if his dog garnishes it with a suitable bed partner.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by rainbow » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:53 pm

superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:37 pm
The trouble here is that if we provide evidence it will lead to your complete annihilation. Do you still see want to see?
Want to see you describe your God.

Are you afraid I might make fun of you?
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Svartalf » Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:32 pm

superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:37 pm
The trouble here is that if we provide evidence it will lead to your complete annihilation. Do you still see want to see?
Look, you credulous goatfucker, you created this very thread as "Scientific Proof Of God". Now, either you deliver, and since you warned us, if it destroys us, it will be on our own heads, or you go back tend your flock and will be welcome to report if the loving attentions you dispense your beasts result in any miraculous offspring.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
superuniverse
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by superuniverse » Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:14 pm

Its already done. He is just a blind fk...


See if you see yourselves in this video...



User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Svartalf » Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:44 pm

I dare not open that post. Is it
a) a miracle and something that actually makes sense
b) a misinterpreted quote from the centuries
c) more depeche mod proof that there's no god
d) more nonsense that I can't even guess at
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by rainbow » Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:40 pm

superuniverse wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:14 pm
Its already done. He is just a blind fk...


See if you see yourselves in this video...


*twattery*
Your God.

How about a basic description?
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Svartalf » Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:44 pm

His 'god' is likely his dog, a mangy terrier cur he worships.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests