Objectivism and the unknown?

[Grifter730]

Hi all, I've been reading up on objectivism just out of curiosity, and I've got a question that I'm hoping can be answered, but it's one that I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to ask/explain. Please note that I'm not trying to debate anything, I'm simply asking and trying to get an answer from an objectivist point of view. I'm not trying to state things as either right or wrong, I'm simply stating my knowledge, as well as asking for your point of view.

From what I understand, objectivism sees the existence of God (and other mystical things that are unknown) as illogical. Part of the reason is that God or other unknowns require proof and other logical explanations. So my question is, do objectivists believe that there is absolutely no way that a God or any other unknown can possibly exist? Or do objectivists believe that a God CAN exist, but that as far as they know (and deduct through reason/logic), one does not exist?

What's hard for me to grasp is the fact that human beings, like everything else, have limitations -- limitations which may include our perception of things. Humans are aware as much as humans are capable of being aware, but this does not by logic just mean that something does not exist just because we aren't aware of it. If I'm correct, that's actually a belief of objectivism right? That a snake is a snake regardless of whether someone sees it or not. By that nature, back when humans had never seen a snake, if one were to say "I believe that a creature exists that has no legs", would that mean that at that time, he was wrong from an objectivist point of view (because it was illogical at the time)?

I guess what I have a really hard time accepting is, how can objectivists 100% completely rule out the possibility that something greater than us could possibly exist? Could aliens with greater powers than humans not exists? After all, we exist, we're human beings, we are what we are. A dog is a dog. If a person can exist, if a dog can exist, if a tree can exist, then why is it that something that we do not have an understanding of can't exist? I think that's really at the heart of my question. I see a lot of "hate" (for lack of a better word) thrown at people with religious beliefs by objectivists. I'm just trying to understand why.

Sorry for the long ramble, but I do look forward to the responses.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Grifter730

[Greebo]

There are certain definitions of "God" which defy logic, and thus can not be believed in without deliberately choosing to be illogical

There are other definitions of "God" which suggest the possibility of something beyond our ability to perceive it. Without any evidence and lacking any strong logical support of the existence of such a being, it is irrational to accept any premise of its existence.

See: Flying Spaghetti Monster. Its *possible* that there is really a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created all of existence, but we can not perceive him. Lacking evidence (a flying meatball that defies any rational explanation, for example), there is no rational reason to accept the premise of his existence.

May you be touched by his noodely appendage.

[DavidOdden]

So my question is, do objectivists believe that there is absolutely no way that a God or any other unknown can possibly exist?

Objectivists believe that there is absolutely no way that God can exist because it is a clearly contradictory concept. Whether or not quadrupeds with a volitional, conceptual consciousness do exist is unknown, and I know of no Objectivists who would say "The only things that can exist are the things that are presently known by man to exist".

I guess what I have a really hard time accepting is, how can objectivists 100% completely rule out the possibility that something greater than us could possibly exist?

I have not seen any evidence that Objectivists 100% completely ruling out the possibility of something greater than us, except by pointing out that "greater than us" implies something non-existent, namely a standard of comparison. I have no problem allowing the imaginary possibility of a civilization on another planet which has perfected fusion as a power source and enjoys space travel an 1/4 light speed. Of course there is not a shred of evidence for such a thing, but it would not contradict the nature of reality for such a thing to be discovered. I'm not sure though that such being would be "greater than us".

Could aliens with greater powers than humans not exists?

Well, we even know that on Earth, cheetahs are faster than us, bats can hear higher frequencies than us, and so on. There are no metaphysical impediments that I can see to there being an alien life-form which is stronger, faster, whatever you have in mind. As long as they obey the laws of nature. It's when you get these law-breaker gods that we have to put our feets down.

I see a lot of "hate" (for lack of a better word) thrown at people with religious beliefs by objectivists.

Better words are "rejection; denunciation; disappointment; contempt". It would depend on the individual.

I'm just trying to understand why.

Because religion is irrational, and morally condemnable. In many cases, these religious beliefs lead their holders to commit despicable acts. Religion is very dangerous because it is fundamentally in contradiction to man's proper means of survival, thus man cannot exist qua man in harmony with religion. Religion has as its ultimate goal the elimination of reason (reason is inimical to religion -- reason drives out religion). So as supporters of reason, Objectivists do oppose religion.

[D'kian]

What's hard for me to grasp is the fact that human beings, like everything else, have limitations -- limitations which may include our perception of things. Humans are aware as much as humans are capable of being aware, but this does not by logic just mean that something does not exist just because we aren't aware of it. If I'm correct, that's actually a belief of objectivism right?

You're making a mistake here.

Yes, there are things which exist that we cannot perceive. That doesn't mean failure to perceive something must mean it exists.

So the question remains: You claim God exists. Fine. What is your evidence?

[Grifter730]

First of all, thanks for the replies.

Second, let's just forget about "religion" in this question. I really don't care what the Christian view of God is, or any other religion for that matter. I lumped God in with other "unknowns" because I'm mainly asking about the objectivism view on what's perceived as possible as opposed to what's possible in our current perceived reality. I said I had a hard time explaining my question, because I guess my brain's just muddled with this whole issue in the first place. Let's say that in this question, the "God" I'm talking about is a being that is omniscient (of human thoughts and world events), that can change/affect our world through his doing. Whether or not this God was created by something else is irrelevant to the question.

With that in mind...

Objectivists believe that there is absolutely no way that God can exist because it is a clearly contradictory concept. Whether or not quadrupeds with a volitional, conceptual consciousness do exist is unknown, and I know of no Objectivists who would say "The only things that can exist are the things that are presently known by man to exist".

See, this is a part that I don't get. What makes God's existence to be a contradictory concept, whereas the existence of a "quadruped with a volitional, conceptual consciousness" to exist is simply unknown? Why is God's existence not simply "unknown" as well?

We already know that there are things that other creatures can do that are beyond human capabilities; cheetahs are able to run faster, birds are able to fly, bats can hear frequencies that humans can't, etc. So why is an omniscient powerful being's existence impossible? Isn't it possible for a being like this to exist and that the human mind just can't comprehend it, much like a cockroach can't comprehend the full extent of human capabilities?

Or do objectivists merely reject certain religions, and not so much the idea of a (much) more powerful being?

You're making a mistake here.

Yes, there are things which exist that we cannot perceive. That doesn't mean failure to perceive something must mean it exists.

So the question remains: You claim God exists. Fine. What is your evidence?

I think you're misunderstanding what I said. I said that just because we can't perceive something, it doesn't mean that it can't exist.

And I'm not claiming that God exists at all. That's completely irrelevant to this whole topic. I'm asking about whether objectivists believe the existence of God is possible. My opinions are irrelevant to this topic, I'm merely here to ask questions and get insights into the objectivist belief.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Grifter730

[softwareNerd]

And I'm not claiming that God exists at all. That's completely irrelevant to this whole topic.

Are you primarily trying to explore the notion of "possible"? If so, I'd suggest that God is a poor example: too much baggage. Instead, take an example that would be universally considered as being without evidence.

For instance, if you're asking about how Objectivists use the term "possible", you might ask: "Do Objectivists consider it 'possible' that the sun is populated by green gremlins?"

[D'kian]

I think you're misunderstanding what I said. I said that just because we can't perceive something, it doesn't mean that it can't exist.

There are plenty of things we can't perceive but which we know do exist. That's because we can detect them using the appropriate instruments, in effect because we can extend our perception into regions it cannot go unaided. Other things can be inferred from what we know about the universe.

God can't be either detected or inferred, only accepted through faith. Therefore making perception, detection and inference irrelevant.

Now, you say things exist which we cannot perceive. I agree. I counter that we can detect them or infer them. Now, could things exist we cannot dwetect or infer? Almost certainly, but we can't know until science and technology advance further.

[Grames]

.. Let's say that in this question, the "God" I'm talking about is a being that is omniscient (of human thoughts and world events), that can change/affect our world through his doing. ...See, this is a part that I don't get. What makes God's existence to be a contradictory concept, whereas the existence of a "quadruped with a volitional, conceptual consciousness" to exist is simply unknown? Why is God's existence not simply "unknown" as well?

This is just logic. It is not even specially Objectivist, just Aristotelian.

Aristotle said that all that exists has a particular form in which it exists. It has a place, a time, various attributes and a boundary which separates this from that or from everything. Everything that exists is particular, delimited and finite. The existence of an actual infinite is a contradiction not because it is uncountably large but because it is indefinite. As a means of knowledge or an amount of knowledge, omniscience is a kind of infinity. Therefore omniscience doesn't exist and an omniscient God doesn't exist.

[Plasmatic]

The 2 questions your asking ,and applied to "God" are answered thus.

Objectivist reject "GOD" and with a strong certainty because:

1. An omniscient "God" cannot exist for the same reason that there cannot be any such thing as a "square circle". Omniscience is an invalid concept for the same reason as "square circles",it would be an existent infinity. It would violate causality ,and the Law of identity.

2. All other postulations adhered to by mystics that do not involve invalid contradictory concepts are arbitrary. There is no evidence for any such existent [irrespective of the lack of contradictory attributes].You could substitute "half dolphin tigers" if youd like it would be arbitrary to assert their existence without verifiable evidence.

[DavidOdden]

What makes God's existence to be a contradictory concept, whereas the existence of a "quadruped with a volitional, conceptual consciousness" to exist is simply unknown?

God is infinite in extent, omnipresent, omnipotent. This leads to well-known contradictions. First, all existence is necessarily definite, and therefore finite. God lacks the power to create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it and is incapable of withdrawing from any part of the universe for fear of being limited by his unlimited extent.

Or do objectivists merely reject certain religions, and not so much the idea of a (much) more powerful being?

All religions, since in one form or the other then deny reality and the fact that reason is man's proper means of survival. We also reject a number of philosophies for the same reason.

[Jake]

Let's say that in this question, the "God" I'm talking about is a being that is omniscient (of human thoughts and world events), that can change/affect our world through his doing.

...

See, this is a part that I don't get. What makes God's existence to be a contradictory concept, whereas the existence of a "quadruped with a volitional, conceptual consciousness" to exist is simply unknown? Why is God's existence not simply "unknown" as well?

Objectivism rejects notions of God because they are either impossible or arbitrary.

Impossible: "God is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, and/or created existence."

This clashes with Objectivist metaphysics.

Objectivism:

Existence exists. (and only existence exists) Nothing can exists outside of existence, therefore God cannot have created existence.

Existence is Identity. To be is to be something, or A is A. Infinities cannot exist, because infinity has no identity. (Is 1÷0 = 2÷0?) Nothing can be omniscient or omnipotent for the same reason you can't have an infinite number of sheep or an object which is infinitely dense. As one of my math teachers loved to say: "Infinity isn't a place you can visit."

Arbitrary: "God created/controls aspects of life on Earth." and/or "God is a being with knowledge/power beyond the ability of humans to understand."

This clashes with Objectivist epistemology.

Objectivism:

The claims are arbitrary. There is no evidence to support claims of God's existence. An idea is true if it can be related to the facts of reality in a non-contradictory way. If an idea contradicts reality, it is false. If there is no evidence at all, the idea is completely unrelated to reality, and therefore arbitrary. To use a phrase which is popular on this forum, the idea is not even wrong.

Belief in either the impossible or the arbitrary is contrary to reason. Faith is the only means of believing such claims. Objectivism holds that reason is man's only proper means of knowledge.

Or do objectivists merely reject certain religions, and not so much the idea of a (much) more powerful being?

Objectivism rejects notions of God and the notion that faith is a valid means to reason. Every religion I know of is based on faith and/or God(s).

Here are some good quotes from Objectivist writing on God, religion, faith, and the arbitrary.

Edit: dang, I was beat to the punch thricely... guess I need to formulate my thoughts and type faster.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Jake

[KevinDW78]

There is also a fairly comprehensive thread that I had debating the existence of God in my philosophy class with many really clear arguments from other forum members on the subject:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=12982

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=12674

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=13013

Edited August 7, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Grifter730]

This has been helpful, thanks to everyone that responded.

One last question...

Omniscience is an invalid concept for the same reason as "square circles",it would be an existent infinity. It would violate causality ,and the Law of identity.

I might just be misunderstanding your post, but does it mean that you don't believe in the existence of something infinite? So what do you think is beyond the universe, and beyond that? And beyond the end of that?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I might just be misunderstanding your post, but does it mean that you don't believe in the existence of something infinite? So what do you think is beyond the universe, and beyond that? And beyond the end of that?

There isn't anything beyond that which exists; existence exists and only existence exists. The principle of identity applies to the universe as a whole, that is, it is finite and something definite. In other words, in a very real sense, there is no room in the universe for the "god" being, since he is conceived of as being infinite in all respects, whereas the universe is finite in all respects.

Regarding handling the unknown in general, Objectivism does not say that which is unknown does not exist, but in order to assert that it does exist, one needs evidence to confirm its existence. It still exists, even while no one knows about it (primacy of existence), but even the supposed existence of something cannot contradict the law of identity (that a thing is what it is) and the law of causality (that a thing acts according to its nature). So, supposing there exists something that is infinite or not definite (which is saying the same thing) violates these two laws of existence, and therefore can be thrown out. If you have evidence for something, then you need to show what that evidence is if you expect anyone to understand what you mean or to convince them of your stance.

[softwareNerd]

So what do you think is beyond the universe, and beyond that? And beyond the end of that?

Let's say we hypothesize that there's something beyond that. We must then ask ourselves why we're excluding that from the "universe". If our notion of the universe is "all that exists", then we should include that stuff that lies beyond the "line". It might mean we drew the line incorrectly. We end up concluding that nothing exists outside "all that exists".

[KevinDW78]

I don't have a lot of knowledge on cosmology, but I always wondered if "the universe" is basically just a big Mobius Strip and that always satisfies me when trying to contemplate the "beyond that, then beyond that" paradox. I figure if you go out far enough, you'll actually find yourself on the other end of the universe. I dunno if there are any actual theories to support that but like I said - it always satisfied my mind on the matter.

[EC]

I don't have a lot of knowledge on cosmology, but I always wondered if "the universe" is basically just a big Mobius Strip and that always satisfies me when trying to contemplate the "beyond that, then beyond that" paradox. I figure if you go out far enough, you'll actually find yourself on the other end of the universe. I dunno if there are any actual theories to support that but like I said - it always satisfied my mind on the matter.

Such "universes" are possible mathematically according to general relativity, but such a universe would be a metaphysical impossibility, and therefore does not exist in reality. It is acutually correct to say the universe is actually unbounded and just continues without end (this is not to be confused with infinite). More specifically the universe qua universe is "asizal" in that the concept of size does not apply to the universe itself.

[eriatarka]

It is acutually correct to say the universe is actually unbounded and just continues without end (this is not to be confused with infinite).

Well it hasnt really been established whether the universe is unbounded. And saying that its unbounded doesnt necessarily mean it isnt finite: think of the surface of a sphere for example - you can travel arbitrarily far in any given direction without ever hitting a boundary, but the whole structure is compact and occupies a finite space.

Edited August 7, 2008 by eriatarka

[EC]

Well it hasnt really been established whether the universe is unbounded. And saying that its unbounded doesnt necessarily mean it isnt finite: think of the surface of a sphere for example - you can travel arbitrarily far in any given direction without ever hitting a boundary, but the whole structure is compact and occupies a finite space.

I never claimed otherwise, the universe is both finite and unbounded. and this has been shown.

[Jake]

Such "universes" are possible mathematically according to general relativity, but such a universe would be a metaphysical impossibility, and therefore does not exist in reality.

What is metaphysically impossible about a 3-D space on a 4-D torus? Or, were you saying that Moebius/Klein-esque spaces are metaphysically impossible? If so, why?

It is acutually correct to say the universe is actually unbounded and just continues without end (this is not to be confused with infinite).

If the universe is unbounded and finite, then for any point, there must exist at least 1 straight ray/line that starts and ends at the chosen point. (This is, admittedly, a conjecture, but I'm pretty sure about it... I'm searching for proof, but posting anyway.) A finite, unbounded universe is exactly what Kevin proposed as a thought aid (albeit a specific case).

... the universe is both finite and unbounded. and this has been shown.

Do you have a link? I'm interested. I know it's been shown possible, but didn't know it had been shown to be true. I thought current data tended to show 0 curvature, but I'm probably not up-to-date on that research. Edited August 7, 2008 by Jake

[eriatarka]

I never claimed otherwise, the universe is both finite and unbounded. and this has been shown.

Neither have been shown though afaik, it isnt a settled question.

[EC]

Neither have been shown though afaik, it isnt a settled question.

It hasn't been shown "proven" scientifically, but it has been shown to hold to a high degree from the available cosmological data. But it will be shown to be completely true empirically one day because it is true metaphysically, and metaphysics trumps physics or any other knowledge for that matter.

[Jake]

It hasn't been shown "proven" scientifically, but it has been shown to hold to a high degree from the available cosmological data.

I know that at least one person/group has shown what appears to be a repeating pattern of star distribution at very large distance scales, this is some evidence that space may be unbounded. A sign of the very same 'coming back to the other side of the universe' that you told Kevin was metaphysically impossible. As I understand it, some people are trying to measure the curvature of space to determine the bounded/unbounded question.

But it will be shown to be completely true empirically one day because it is true metaphysically, and metaphysics trumps physics or any other knowledge for that matter.

How do you derive a necessity for an unbounded universe from Objectivist metaphysics?

Finite? Yes.

Unbounded? Prove it.

[EC]

I know that at least one person/group has shown what appears to be a repeating pattern of star distribution at very large distance scales, this is some evidence that space may be unbounded. A sign of the very same 'coming back to the other side of the universe' that you told Kevin was metaphysically impossible. As I understand it, some people are trying to measure the curvature of space to determine the bounded/unbounded question.

How do you derive a necessity for an unbounded universe from Objectivist metaphysics?

Finite? Yes.

Unbounded? Prove it.

Use the search function to find the thread called The Finite and Unbounded Universe along with many similar threads. Quickly there are no bounds because one can keep traveling from one finite point to another eternally. Just as the universe is unbounded temporally i.e., eternal; it is also unbounded spatially.

[Jake]

Use the search function to find the thread called The Finite and Unbounded Universe along with many similar threads. Quickly there are no bounds because one can keep traveling from one finite point to another eternally. Just as the universe is unbounded temporally i.e., eternal; it is also unbounded spatially.

I searched only titles, since you said there is a thread with the above name.

That is not what "unbounded" means. Being unbounded spatially means that you can travel in any direction indefinitely without reaching a boundary. AFAIK, the only way a space can be finite and unbounded is for it to be part of a higher-dimensional space which is bounded (e.g. a sphere is bounded in 3-D, but it's surface is unbounded in 2-D).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "travelling from one finite point to another eternally." If you mean that there are an infinite number of points between two points, that is a description of the continuity of space. It's opposite, a discrete space, clashes with special relativity, but why it does is beyond my current physics comprehension.

I found the May 2008 thread where you posted an essay by someone else. I'll have to read that more than once before I can comment on it.