Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Make It Stop :(

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I have made several posts already about this other student in my philosophy class. After telling him I was not interested in discussion the issue, he continues to outright harrass me in the class. This is his newest attempt. I wish he would just leave me alone.

TOPIC:

Suppose there is a God (a sentient being responsible for the creation of the universe), do you think God's moral views can be subjective?

MY POST:

Suppose there is a god (already, I now consider us to be outside the realm of logic). Can god’s morality be subjective? The answer is yes. When asked why, I need not give an answer. I cannot give an answer, because we have already entered a hypothetical not bound by the laws of logic. My answer would simply be whatever my imagination wishes to produce. Since this hypothetical has no boundaries, it has no right, wrong, valid, invalid, sound, or unsound answers. The only answer is “all of the above”. Anything goes in this hypothetical.

JASON, THE HARRASSER:

Why do you continue to identify discussions concerning God as "illogical?" If you are going to categorize this type of discussion as "illogical" then in what category shall we place the "three axioms" you referred to in your previous post. "Not to be forgotten...?" When a person sees a painting, is it illogical for him to suppose that there was a painter? Is it illogical for a person to believe, when he sees a building, that there was a builder? Of course not. In fact, it is illogical to believe otherwise. In the same way, the universe exists - and it must have had a creator who exists outside of its reality in the same way that the painter exists outside of the reality he has created. Now, I realize you may not accept that for whatever reason, but my point is this: If you are going to persist in your unsubstantiated claims that God-talk is illogical, then you are going to have to do a better job of showing why your version of an objective morality is more logical. Talk of God is no more illogical or a figment of the imagination that your talk of three random, arbitrary, and unwarranted axioms.

MY REPLY:

You cannot prove through logic that god exists. Any attempt to do so will beg the question. You can only make assumptions with no evidence. That is not logic.

Furthermore, the three axioms mentioned are neither random, arbitrary, or unwarranted:

- If existence does not exist, then you do not exist and neither does god.

- If consciousness does not exist, then you do not exist and neither does your god.

- If Identity does not exist, then you do not exist and neither does your god.

I believe you are now just being heated and emotional without actually considering what you are saying.

At this point I think I just need to ignore him for the rest of the semester.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think that he is harassing you, but I will admit this post of his is incredibly intellectually weak. He is trying to honestly challenge you, from what I have read, but his contradictions and fallacies make for a terrible attempt. To clarify:

If you are going to categorize this type of discussion as "illogical" then in what category shall we place the "three axioms" you referred to in your previous post. "Not to be forgotten...?"
His attack on the axioms make no sense. Considering how he structures the rest of his post, this is the fallacy of the red herring. He mentions the three axioms in the beginning, says things that are irrelevant to them, and then makes an arbitrary conclusion about them.

When a person sees a painting, is it illogical for him to suppose that there was a painter? Is it illogical for a person to believe, when he sees a building, that there was a builder? Of course not. In fact, it is illogical to believe otherwise. In the same way, the universe exists - and it must have had a creator who exists outside of its reality in the same way that the painter exists outside of the reality he has created.
This is the fallacy of the package-deal, when one takes two or more things that are not similar and packages them together as if they were. Jason has packaged together the metaphysical with the man-made.

Also, he makes a logic mistake and a contradiction. Artists do not "create" reality, and it is a contradiction to say God created existence while at the same time existing/not existing (either one leads to the same error).

He is being hypocritical as well. Previously he said logic has no place in this topic as God is above logic, but now he is making a point that it does matter because he brings in logic's inseparable brother, "illogic." You can't have "up" without "down."

If you are going to persist in your unsubstantiated claims that God-talk is illogical, then you are going to have to do a better job of showing why your version of an objective morality is more logical. Talk of God is no more illogical or a figment of the imagination that your talk of three random, arbitrary, and unwarranted axioms.
This part I do not think much anyone here will be able to comment on unless they know what context Jason is speaking from, that is, what exactly you have said about the axioms previously.

At this point I think I just need to ignore him for the rest of the semester.
And I would make it explicit too, for the above reasons. This is an online class, right?

I have noticed, however, that you have committed an error in your reply to him:

- If consciousness does not exist, then you do not exist and neither does your god.
It is possible to exist without consciousness, it is just that nothing would be aware of it. If consciousness doe not exist then, well, you would not know the difference (a non-consciousness not knowing anything whatsoever).

[Edit: Clarification and small addition]

Edited by Benpercent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think that he is harassing you

This example by itself, no. But if you have seen the other posts of my interactions with this student, I believe you would think otherwise - including private emails from him continuing to hound and prostelytize me.

It is possible to exist without consciousness

At first I wondered if this was correct too. But then I resolved it that if consciousness didn't exist how could a "conscious" god exist to create anything?

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may have answered these elsewhere already --

What is the name of this course?

Why are you taking it? (Not meant as a judgment - asking if it is required or if you had special interest in subject)

What kind of course is it? That is, is there a classroom component or is it entirely on the Interwebs?

~Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I think I just need to ignore him for the rest of the semester.
Maybe, but an intellectually preferable approach would be to engage and best him in this debate.

In my opinion, the foundation of your problem is that you have not clearly established the nature of logic and thus concepts such as "illogical". I don't mean that you are mistaken or that you haven't said the right thing once, I mean that I suspect that you have not gotten him to actually understand what is meant by "logic".

The flow of his argument is not insane even though it is in error. So you should address the assumption that when you see a building, you may reasonably assume a builder. One problem is that his analogy fails spectacularly as a general rule -- he tricked you by giving the examples yet not the rule. Let me try: "When you see an obviously man-made object, you should assume it was created by some man". No, that won't work (I'm assuming that god is not a man, so you may have to modify the form of the argument if he subscribes to LSD beliefs). Case in point, the Mississippi river is not obviously man-made. In fact, we have a pretty good idea about the automatic physical processes that give rise to rivers. So maybe his principle is "When you see any object, you can assume it is created by someone". But that is not a valid assumption, and even with all of the roads, cars and buildings in the world, still most of the stuff on Earth is naturally occurring without the need for man to create it. Now he could claim "Then god created it", but what that means, considering all of the stuff that we know of in the universe, is that for more than 99.999% of the stuff involved in this "If you see X, we assume a creator" analogy, there is no reason to accept that conclusion.

The second problem is that his argument involves a recursive ruh-roh, that is, an infinite regress of arbitrary presumptions. If you see a thing, you can assume there was a creater who is "outside of" the thing, which created the thing. The same creator must be subject to the same logic, so god1 who created the universe and is outside of the universe must himself have been created by an external being god2 who created the universe plus god1. As you presumably now, god2 was actually created by god3. Now, clearly god3 must have been created.... sorry, I have dinner to tend to and don't have the infinite amount of time required to give the full list.

His positive argument for god is thus fatally flawed. I have no idea how he has handled the classical arguments that god cannot exist. The point is, I'd suggest you stick to careful logic and be persistent, obnoxiously so if necessary. He must recant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ready for More?

JASON:

I disagree with you, and so do many big-name philosophers throughout the ages, but even if I were to grant that it can't be proven through logic that God exists, then by the same logic - it cannot be logically proven that He doesn't. So even if I were to believe you (which I don't) regarding it not being logically provable that God exists, your reasoning would still remain fundamentally flawed because you are in no better of a position to show that your conclusions are logical than I am to demonstrate that mine are. You end up begging the question as much as, if not more so than, that which you accuse the theist of.

Actually what I'm saying in neither heated not emotional. There's nothing emotional about truth - it either is or it isn't. Rather, I have merely suggested that your three axioms are even less unsubstantiated than the notion that God exists. Your response regarding existence, consciousness, and identity, while pithy, has nothing to do with what my request that you demonstrate, via the same rules you apply to the idea of God's existence being non-logical, how your three axioms are in fact logical. If you can't do that, then concede the point that you are appealing to your own authority rather than to reason in your attempts to 1) discredit God as logical and 2) glorify your own arbitrary axioms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Saga Continues. (Thanks to Ben for some ammo):

MY REPLY:

Very well. Let's do that then. You say the three axioms I previously listed are unsubstantiated. I believe my previous "pithy" post demonstrated that they are not. If you do not believe so, then make an argument as such - you cannot just dismiss me with an ad hominem attack of being "pithy". If you feel my three statements were not logical - then argue that. HOW are they not logical? Where is the fallacy I have committed?

How is god illogical? The burden of proof is on you to show that he is! I cannot with the laws of logic prove a negative. Can you prove to me that Santa clause is illogical? Since you cannot, well then Santa clause must be logical. Secondly, I am not "glorifying” the axioms. I am merely stating their rational usefulness in regards to ethics, as well as demonstrating that without them, even a concept of god cannot exist. You state that I am in no better position than you – but this is not an accurate portrayal of our positions. I will argue (and concede) any valid proof demonstrated through logic. You however, have not yet done that. I don’t care how “big” any philosopher’s name is – that doesn’t make their argument true – that’s the fallacy of an Argument from Authority.

In regards to your painter example - this is a fallacy of a package-deal. You cannot compare two things as if they were similar, i.e. the metaphysical with the man-made. Secondly, painters do not create reality – they merely act within it. I cannot “create” new laws of physics. If I paint a pink elephant, that pink elephant is not reality. If I build a building – I did not “create” it out of nothingness. The iron, glass, and wood all existed prior to my building. I merely moved them within reality and within their own existence and they maintained their identities the entire time. Iron does not cease to be iron and become something else merely because I used it to erect a building – it is still iron atoms are as they always were. Also in the same example, you are committing a contradiction to argue that god created existence, but existed before the creation of existence.

HIS RESPONSE:

Very well. Let's do that then. You say the three axioms I previously listed are unsubstantiated. I believe my previous "pithy" post demonstrated that they are not. If you do not believe so, then make an argument as such - you cannot just dismiss me with an ad hominem attack of being "pithy". If you feel my three statements were not logical - then argue that. HOW are they not logical? Where is the fallacy I have committed?

*** No, no, no. I'll not submit to your shifting of the burden of proof. It is your task to show that they are 1) logical and 2) to show that they are more logical than the belief in God. I cannot identify a fallacy in your argument because you haven't produced one relevant to the original discussion.

How is god illogical? The burden of proof is on you to show that he is!

*** Belief in God is very logical. See my last post. Creation = creator. This says nothing about the nature of God, who He is, what He requires, etc., but it demonstrates His existence quite plainly. If you can't see that a painter paints a painting and therefore exists outside of his created reality and is therefore not subject to the rules and axioms of his own creation, I don't know what else to say. That's logic 101.

I cannot with the laws of logic prove a negative. Can you prove to me that Santa clause is illogical? Since you cannot, well then Santa clause must be logical.

A majority of people in the world do not claim that Santa Clause exists. However, they do claim that God does. This phenomenon along with the illustration presented above points to God's existence being logical. What's illogical is NOT to believe in Him.

Secondly, I am not "glorifying” the axioms. I am merely stating their rational usefulness in regards to ethics, as well as demonstrating that without them, even a concept of god cannot exist. You state that I am in no better position than you – but this is not an accurate portrayal of our positions. I will argue (and concede) any valid proof demonstrated through logic. You however, have not yet done that.

*** You are still trying to shift the burden because you have yet to produce what I originally asked of you. If cannot do so, then just pass.

I don’t care how “big” any philosopher’s name is – that doesn’t make their argument true – that’s the fallacy of an Argument from Authority.

*** So then, are you doing the same by appealing to your own authority to substantiate these claims that you continue to make?

In regards to your painter example - this is a fallacy of a package-deal. You cannot compare two things as if they were similar, i.e. the metaphysical with the man-made.

*** According to what who? Why can you not compare the two? God existed and exists in the physical in the person of Jesus Christ. He acted and acts within the physical universe. Therefore, there is no category mistake as you seem to imply. If you cannot see that a creation necessitates a Creator, I do not know what else to say. And before you throw the whole, "then God had to have a Creator" argument at me, God originally exists outside the reality of man, created the rules of man's world, and is therefore not subjected to them. Beginnings and ends to not apply to an infinite being.

Secondly, painters do not create reality – they merely act within it. I cannot “create” new laws of physics. If I paint a pink elephant, that pink elephant is not reality. If I build a building – I did not “create” it out of nothingness. The iron, glass, and wood all existed prior to my building. I merely moved them within reality and within their own existence and they maintained their identities the entire time. Iron does not cease to be iron and become something else merely because I used it to erect a building – it is still iron atoms are as they always were. Also in the same example, you are committing a contradiction to argue that god created existence, but existed before the creation of existence.

*** I disagree. You are downplaying the immense implication of creating anew reality. I can write a book and speak about an earth where gravity does not exist. This is contrary to the physical laws of OUR reality, but in the one I have created it has no bearing. This is the same way with God's creation of the world. He created it, made the rules for it (including reason, laws, physics, etc.).

This is what I was waiting for. I wanted him to step right into the trap I set for him to nail his coffin shut:

In any event, you have now given me exactly what I wanted. You have proven my point for me. You said, "God originally exists outside the reality of man, created the rules of man's world, and is therefore not subjected to them." Therefore, god is outside the realm of logic by your own words. And if something cannot exist according to the rules of logic, then by your own definition (and mine as well), it is illogical. SO with that, I will now consider this discussion resolved to my satisfaction. The existence of god is illogical.
Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the name of this course?

Why are you taking it? (Not meant as a judgment - asking if it is required or if you had special interest in subject)

What kind of course is it? That is, is there a classroom component or is it entirely on the Interwebs?

This is Survey of Philosophy (basically a Philosophy 101 course). I am taking it because it fullfills my humanities requirement for gen eds. And yes it is entirely an online course.

It is a shame he will delude himself into thinking he was not trapped.

I will bet anything he will come back with an argument that something doesin't have to either be logical or illogical - it can be neither.

Also I recognize that this entire discussion is one giant Straw Man because he keeps trying to argue a completely different post I made in another discussion with this one (the talk of axioms) in which I had basically said the three axioms of Objectivism are viewed by Objectivists as absolutes and therefore are the foundation for all Objectivist ethics. Then I gave some cursory examples. Nothing more, nothing less. But he keeps bringing that argument into this one as somehow that I have to prove my axioms (which I did but he refuses to acknowledge by passing them off as "pithy") and using that to counter this argument that the existence of god is illogical.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe before responding again you should first come to some common ground with him on epistemology (though you wouldn't use that term with him).

For instance, tell him that there's no point two people discussing something if one says "I feel in my heart that X is true", and the other says "I feel in my heart that X is false". Who's heart wins? Can anyone ever be right such an inherently subjective argument? By his own terms, he should accept your subjective heart-feelings are as true for you as his are for him, and not pretend that argument and to-and-fro debate has any meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I recognize that this entire discussion is one giant Straw Man because he keeps trying to argue a completely different post I made in another discussion with this one (the talk of axioms) in which I had basically said the three axioms of Objectivism are viewed by Objectivists as absolutes and therefore are the foundation for all Objectivist ethics. Then I gave some cursory examples. Nothing more, nothing less. But he keeps bringing that argument into this one as somehow that I have to prove my axioms (which I did but he refuses to acknowledge by passing them off as "pithy") and using that to counter this argument that the existence of god is illogical.

I'd say that confirms my belief that it is time to stop arguing with him.

Maybe before responding again you should first come to some common ground with him on epistemology (though you wouldn't use that term with him).

Is it worth continuing with this guy any further?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way discussions don't last long. If you don't want to talk to him, don't respond to him.

I try not to - but then he goes and says something utterly absurd and I feel obligated to respond because I don't want other mushy-minded students in the course to not see the absuridty of his arguments. But you're right of course. I need to get rid of that feeling and not even read his posts when he tries to engage me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my. Oh my horrible my. There are so many bad arguments in that post that I cannot begin.

*** No, no, no. I'll not submit to your shifting of the burden of proof. It is your task to show that they are 1) logical and 2) to show that they are more logical than the belief in God. I cannot identify a fallacy in your argument because you haven't produced one relevant to the original discussion.

Red herring; by trying to distract you with the axioms, he avoids having to live up to his own burden of proof. He's playing rhetorical hot potato.

*** Belief in God is very logical. See my last post. Creation = creator. This says nothing about the nature of God, who He is, what He requires, etc., but it demonstrates His existence quite plainly. If you can't see that a painter paints a painting and therefore exists outside of his created reality and is therefore not subject to the rules and axioms of his own creation, I don't know what else to say. That's logic 101.

I don't think that he's making a package deal so much as making a fallacy of equivocation. He is clearly failing to define the difference between Creation as in ex nihilo and creation as in Construction. When he speaks of painters and builders he uses the term create in the manner that is synonymous with construction. In reality the painter does not create as his god would. The painter is arranging collections of quarks on a page in such a manner that it reflects light in such a way that it creates an effect appreciable by the human mind. God magically farts quarks and does with them as he pleases. Also, its good to note the contradiction in asserting that God can play with quarks without being subject to the laws that govern them. He also blatantly ignores that painters are in fact very subject to the same laws as their paintings.

*** A majority of people in the world do not claim that Santa Clause exists. However, they do claim that God does. This phenomenon along with the illustration presented above points to God's existence being logical. What's illogical is NOT to believe in Him.

So if I got a petition of 3 billion and one people that stated that I am in fact a god and that George Carlin would return in a year as my resurrected messiah, it would automatically be metaphysically true?

*** You are still trying to shift the burden because you have yet to produce what I originally asked of you. If cannot do so, then just pass.

Red Herring.

*** So then, are you doing the same by appealing to your own authority to substantiate these claims that you continue to make?

He likes this red herring thing.

*** According to what who? Why can you not compare the two? God existed and exists in the physical in the person of Jesus Christ. He acted and acts within the physical universe. Therefore, there is no category mistake as you seem to imply. If you cannot see that a creation necessitates a Creator, I do not know what else to say. And before you throw the whole, "then God had to have a Creator" argument at me, God originally exists outside the reality of man, created the rules of man's world, and is therefore not subjected to them. Beginnings and ends to not apply to an infinite being.

Bare assertion.

*** I disagree. You are downplaying the immense implication of creating anew reality. I can write a book and speak about an earth where gravity does not exist. This is contrary to the physical laws of OUR reality, but in the one I have created it has no bearing. This is the same way with God's creation of the world. He created it, made the rules for it (including reason, laws, physics, etc.).

So does this mean that all the characters I dreamt up, along with all characters in all books by every author ever, really exist? I guess we will find out who would win in a fight between Dracula and John Galt. I wonder if it would be possible to become an Objectivist Jedi...

~*~*~*~

He is clearly an irrational loon living in a mystical fantasy land. Evasion on the highest scale. Tell him to keep his idiot god and hippie messiah son. Go watch a movie or something

Edited by Nyronus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by logic He is not extant, then His existence He must recant.

God: "I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith and without faith i am nothing."

Man: "But, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

God: "Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that." *God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.*

There, you go, he did recant his own existence... at least in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. :thumbsup: And according to Jason each book has its own "reality" so that really happened in a sense according to Jason. :P

EDIT: A small addition.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol I love being right. My prediction, just as I said:

JASON:

Not so. God is both outside the realm of logic and simultaneously inside of it. You have failed to account for the fact that, according to the Bible, God exists as a spirit Being who is outside of nature, but also exists in the person of Jesus Christ was was and is an historical figure. God became a man and entered into our world. Therefore, as we see Him now, the laws of logic are not at odds with Him. However, just because the laws of logic are not at odds with Him does not mean that He is necessarily "confined to" the laws of logic. We know God because He has made Himself knowable via a measure of logic and reason. However, He still created those laws and as a Being who exists simultaneously outside of His created reality, He is not subject to them. So again, you have still failed in your attempts to demonstrate how the existence of God is illogical. Next time, please take all of my comments in context before you present a counterargument rather than isolating one line and constructing a straw man out of it. Straw men are easily attacked, but age-old arguments for the existence of God that have yet to be refuted are not so easily dismissed.

Also, just out of curiosity - and I'm genuinely interested in what you think about this - do you believe that all philosophers (ancient and modern) that believe not only in the existence of God, but also that His existence is logical - do you believe they are illogical? Stupid? What do you do with Anthony Flew? Alvin Plantinga? Augustine? Aquinas? Anselm? Newton and others? I'm not appealing to authority - I'm asking what your opinion is of these brilliant thinkers? If they were here today, would you refuse to have a discussion with them on the grounds that their conclusions are so illogical that they are not even worth the effort? No sarcasm meant here - I am interested in your thoughts.

I bow to the absurdity.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would recommend that you stop arguing with him, since now his arguments are becoming messier and even more ridiculous, but I must admit I am thoroughly entertained.

This time he denies that A is A and asserts that A is whatever God wants it to be. God being both subject and not subject to natural laws is a contradiction, and he introduces another red herring by asking you whether or not you would associate with the above brilliant thinkers merely on the basic of their religious views. *Any* type of viewpoint alone is not sufficient in how one should deal with a particular person, but rather it is how that viewpoint translates to their actions and future thinking that matters. And let us not forget the use of the ad populum fallacy, as well as the appeal to authority (which he denies and finally makes explicit his evasion).

I honestly think Jason will have a much more difficult time in future philosophy classes, where fallacies are not tolerated so patiently. How involved is your instructor in these conversations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would recommend that you stop arguing with him, since now his arguments are becoming messier and even more ridiculous, but I must admit I am thoroughly entertained.

AND - I'm winning! ;)

How involved is your instructor in these conversations?

in the begining of the course - he was very involved - he would undermine everyone's argument to point out the fallacies. But the past month he has been backpacking through Europe so his involvement on the discussion board has been less and less. I will also hope that he has not gotten involved in this dicussion because he feels I am doing an adequate job by myself.

Read it if you want to know what he's going to say next!

As you can read from his responses, he is begining to get quieter and quieter. Obviously he realizes that (with help from all of you) i am picking off his arguments one by one, and has no refutiation to make - so instead he evades and goes somewhere else. But now he is basically trapped in a corner and has nowhere else to go so he is starting to shut up rather than admit that he is arriving at so many contradicitons.

But for more entertainment, here is my final address to him:

You cannot argue that because something is in the Bible, that it is valid. That is Logic 101. It is a classic, textbook example of circular reasoning (begging the question). "The Bible says God exists. The Bible is the word of God. Therefore, God exists." That is a fallacy. Just because the Bible says something does not give your argument one iota of soundness. Lots of books say lots of things. It doesn't make them true.

In your earlier post, you stated, “A majority of people in the world do not claim that Santa Clause exists. However, they do claim that God does. This phenomenon along with the illustration presented above points to God's existence being logical.”

- No it doesn’t. And I am astonished that you think it would. It does not matter if one person or one billion people think something. That still doesn’t make it true. By your reasoning, if I got a majority of people in the world to claim that I am god and creator of the universe, then it becomes logical.

To answer your personal question – yes I would consider anyone, no matter who they are or what their name is, who tried to present a sound and valid logical argument proving the existence of god to be irrational. “Stupid”, no – that is an ad hominem argument that I have not nor would not make of anyone, including you.

Furthermore, to be complete and address your earlier points:

“No, no, no. I'll not submit to your shifting of the burden of proof. It is your task to show that they are 1) logical and 2) to show that they are more logical than the belief in God. I cannot identify a fallacy in your argument because you haven't produced one relevant to the original discussion.”

“You are still trying to shift the burden because you have yet to produce what I originally asked of you. If cannot do so, then just pass.”

“So then, are you doing the same by appealing to your own authority to substantiate these claims that you continue to make?”

These are all Red Herrings. You continue to distract this argument with a separate post about axioms in ethics to avoid addressing this argument about the illogical nature of god and therefore avoiding your own burden of proof.

“I disagree. You are downplaying the immense implication of creating a new reality. I can write a book and speak about an earth where gravity does not exist. This is contrary to the physical laws of OUR reality, but in the one I have created it has no bearing. This is the same way with God's creation of the world. He created it, made the rules for it (including reason, laws, physics, etc.).”

By your argument, every character ever created in any book or imagination is real. Snow White is real and so are her dwarves. Harry Potter is real. Indiana Jones is real. Spider Man is real. Need I go on? It doesn’t matter that they don’t exist in this reality (I am using your argument now, not my own) because they exist in their reality. They live, breathe, think, all within the existence their creators created. This is borderline absurdity to me. Again, I am astonished that you would ever assert such an argument.

To address your new points (though we are really just going around in circles now):

“God exists as a spirit Being who is outside of nature, but also exists in the person of Jesus Christ”

Please support this premise with evidence.

“God became a man and entered into our world”

Please support this premise with evidence.

One more point I just realized and want to make. You say,

“God is both outside the realm of logic and simultaneously inside of it. You have failed to account for the fact that, according to the Bible, God exists as a spirit Being who is outside of nature, but also exists in the person of Jesus Christ was and is an historical figure. God became a man and entered into our world.”

How is this possible? Regard your earlier argument how a creator can create just as a painter paints and an author writes. You argued they created those existences and so they exist. Can a painter enter into his painting’s “existence” and become part of it? Can a writer enter their book’s “existence” and become part of it? Your arguments are not coherent. If the painter cannot, how can god? You used that argument equivocating the two as equal to prove creation has a creator– now you have to either maintain it (thereby rejecting logic outright) or reject it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the painter is a creator just as god is, then the painter should be able to enter his painting’s “existence” just as you argue god did. If he cannot then you are in contradiction.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But for more entertainment, here is my final address to him:

I think it would be entertaining to say what I said before about how by his argument Man made God disappear in a puff of logic. Here is the post again:

God: "I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith and without faith i am nothing."

Man: "But, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

God: "Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that." *God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.*

There, you go, he did recant his own existence... at least in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. ;) And according to Jason each book has its own "reality" so that really happened in a sense according to Jason. :D

EDIT: A small addition.

I think it would be entertaining to see him reply to being told that by his argument then in some sense that part of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy really happened. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be careful to use my own thoughts as much as possible. This is a college course after all and I don't want to feel like I am plagiarizing the valuable help I receive here on this forum.

I wasn't suggesting that you use it. I am saying I think it would be entertaining to try wriggle his way out of that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG. The instructor finally got involved in this discussion but attacked ME:

Kevin, you seem to be working with a particularly narrow notion of 'logic'. It's not at all clear what you mean when you use that word. Let me try to demonstrate the confusion using an obviously valid argument:

1. If it is not the case that God exist,s nothing else could possibly exist.

2. I exist (as Descartes proved).

3. Therefore, God exists

So, using a pretty much universally accepted 'logic' I've just proven that God exists. If that's right, then it can't be right to suggest that any discussion of God takes one outside the realm of 'logic'.

Now, it seems that you want to say that logic and rationality are in some sense intimately connected. This may be right, but it will be hard to show ANY system of rationality to be the right system without begging the question. A great book that exploits this weakness, which I invite you to take a look at, is by Graham Priest, "In Contradiction".

As a side topic, in another post at the same time, this conversation took place involving the instructor:

ME:

You left out the most important scenario, in my opinion – those who do not believe in god but still believe in absolute morality. For Objectivists such as me, the concept of absolute morality dictated by god is replaced by absolute morality dictated by life. The three axioms of Objectivism are existence, consciousness, and identity. From these absolutes, an Objectivist derives all their morality. Any act that violates one of these three would be considered as immoral. Murder for instance would violate one’s right to consciousness. The motivation for following such a morality is not based on retribution in an afterlife, but instead because of the acceptance and the desire to be rational based on the three axioms. With that acceptance, subjectivism becomes irrelevant. What is considered moral or immoral is simply based on what follows from the actions of Man qua Man – a term that refers to man acting as a rational being. The most important and valuable aspect to Man qua Man is the act of thinking. For, it is the use of the mind that allows the rational man to live and to exist. Any act that robs him of the use of his mind, whether it be the sacrifice of his mind before a concept of god or the sacrifice of his life before a concept of society, is deemed immoral according to the axioms.

INSTRUCTOR:

Objectivism was---as far as I know---first put forward by Ayn Rand. To see her view on things, a good place to start is with her two popular fiction books: "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead". Another cursory exposition of her views can be found in a brief book by her titled "Anthem".

Personally, I think Ayn Rand's stuff is pop-philosophy and not worth much. In the academic field, I don't know anyone that takes her very seriously. She's a good writer, however, and both of her books are excellent, entertaining reads.

To which I responded:

I never quite understood why. Sometimes I wonder if it is because the academia feels threatened by it. I am currently also taking Ethical Dilemmas, and the chapter in the book in that course has an entire section devoted to Rand in the chapter on Ethical Egoism. Indeed the chapter even concludes that the argument against Ethical Egoism is not logical and the author, James Rachels, points out that academic philosophers always have egoism in the back of their minds because it may be correct. That being said, while the section on Rand was an accurate representation of Objectivism, a lot of the rest of that chapter on Egoism did not really fit.

I also think the academia tries to dismiss Rand because she is "just a fiction writer". But that is hardly a logical argument. Yes, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are works of fiction which demonstrate Objectivim, Rand wrote many non-fiction books just on the philosophy. These include The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Romantic Manifesto, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and others.

He then replied with:

Honestly, I think the reason Rand is generally dismissed as a philosopher is because she lacks argumentative substance. She has many interesting ideas, but most of her ideas aren't backed by robust arguments; rather, they tend to be backed by weak, hackneyed arguments with too much inflated rhetoric. Those two things combined will turn most serious philosophers off.

He also challenged my previous argument with:

That's all well and good, but what makes violating one of those "absolutes" wrong? That is, what makes it immoral to violate one of the absolutes?

What makes your three axioms objective? What do you mean by objective? Are they like three absolute moral bubbles existing in some moral space dictating to the rest of the universe the laws of morality?

How does life dictate morality? What does that mean?

What's the distinction between an 'absolute morality' and 'objective morality'?

Who decided these three axioms are the absolutes of morality?

Are they innately known? Inscribed on our hearts, if you will?

What about those who think you're three absolutes are nonsense? How can you show that morality is in any way dependent on these three absolutes?

I don't care too much about responding to his criticism of my argument, but I really don't want to let his condemnation of Rand pass by. Especially since some students have responded to this post being interested and curious where the axiom come from. I don't want the instructor's predjudice to potentially deter potential future Objectivists.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...