Veritas

I simply mean "illogical" when I am speaking of coherence. I keep wondering if we disagree. I think I think I agree with you entirely here. lol. I don't see how there is a disconnect between my point and what you are saying.

I am confused as to what you are saying here. I do not agree that there are two possible types of existince. Only one is real. I am not sure what you mean when you say causality "applies" to the acction of entities. Causality is identity "applied" to action.

The paragraph in this article that states what I was saying. "God can allow things to act contrary to their nature, which is also forbidden by a rational metaphysics. Things cannot act against their nature. Not even if someone tries to make them do so." I suppose my error is in stating stricly that I am attempting to prove a negative. In reality i am simply stating that I can make the statement, "God (the one that does mircales) cannot exist.

I don't grant it is viable I grant it as their freedom to say what they want. I don't grant them legitimacy.

I think I understand and would agree with most of what you are saying. What I am trying to do is show that an "idea" is incoherent. I am not granting any kind of existince to the non existence entity, not even for the sake of argument. I am simply pointing out that the thing that is being claimed to be in the "room" cannot be there by way of incoherency. What would you say is the differecne between something being arbitrary and something being incoherent?

When you say God is my starting point, I don't mean that it is "my" starting point as if I am the one presenting the argument for the existence of God. I am simply granting the person ability to make the claim. At the point that the claim is made I am trying to show that the claim is ultimately incoherent by showing that the "idea or description" God contradicts nature. I am not granting the person a right to claim another "type" of existence. I am in essence showing that three is only one possible type of existence and if anything or any claim is asserted that contradicts that claim then it cannot exist. Secondarily, when you say that water turns to ice due to environmental factors are you saying this in a way that is consistent with an objectivist view of causality? As far as I have read so far, from an objectivist perspective what causes an entity to act is the identity of the entity. While there are environmental factors that exist, it is not due to environmental factors that cause the water to change, it is due to the identity of the water. Environmental factors happen and what is caused by any entity is directly related to the identity of the entity and not directly related to the external factor.

My point is that unless one is committed to “rationalism” as a valid epistemology then there can’t be just random premises unrelated to reality.

This kind of makes me think about the time when Peter Keating was talking with Howard Roark and Roark said to him ... “If you want my advice, Peter, you’ve made a mistake already. By asking me. By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don’t you know what you want? How can you stand it, not to know?” Ayn Rand said that happiness comes from the "...achievement of ones values...". You said that studying abroad was a goal and that it did not make you happy, buy "studying" is a process and not an acheivment. The process is not where hapiness comes. It comes at the end of the process. It comes at the acheivment of your goals. i have seen many people begin a lot fo things and then top inthe process for various reasons and it has lead in frustration. It takes effort to focus on what you really want to accomplish and then upon figuring that out stay with it until the end. It is at the end that you will find happiness. Hapiness is derived from the acheivment of your own goal by your own effort. No one can tell you what to value. You have to do the mental work to figure out what you would make you happy to acheive.

My only issue with what you are saying is that it is no coherent to begin with a supernatural being as if has equal status in reality. This would seem to be rationalizing without justification. I can only begin with reality (existence, identity, and consciousness) and then see what ideas correspond with them. I see no meaning in suspending reality to allow God to be a starting point. Also, I am not sure I can even coherently say that God is "absent" in the sense that one is absent from a room. This assumes that a person "could be" in a room and just is not at the moment. To be absent is not the same as not existing. What I am proving is similar to proving that there is no giraffe in the room playing chess with an alligator. This idea does not in anyway correspond with reality and is incoherent. Giraffes cannot play chess because they are animals and do not have the ability to form abstractions. Therefore, a chess playing giraffe cannot exist and to try to make an argument for one would be incoherent. I am attempting to prove a negative by showing that what I am denying is a logical impossibility. That is not to say that it is improbable. I am saying that this concept is incoherent and therefore not true. Lastly, I think that your understanding of causation is not accurate. The cause of an action is the identity of the action, not another entity acting upon the entity. It is the law of identity applied to action (Binswanger). It is incoherent to say that a supernatural being "caused" water to turn into wine. One, the cause of water turning into anything is the identity of the water not something outside of the water. Water turns into ice because of its own identity not because it gets freezing temperatures outside. If freezing temperatures where to cause of things turning into "ice" then rocks would turn into ice simply be them being in contact with freezing temperature. Two, my point is that nothing can cause the identity of a thing to change it identity, especially since identity is what makes it the very thing it is to begin with. This is why I am saying that the concept of a being that can do miracles is incoherent.

Proving that God does not exist. Can someone evaluate my reasoning here. Axiom: Law of Identity Observation: Self Evident Claim: There is a being that can do the miraculous. Definition of Mircale: an event that is not explicable according to natural laws, but super (above) nature. Violation: Law of Identity If someone claims that there is a being that can alter eixstence in a way that violates the law of identity then can’t it be said that it would be impossible for that being to exist? Why is this not a plain and simple proof that there is no God that meets this criterion and is therefore incoherent as an asserition that God (this kind of god) exist. A true miracle would be to turn water into wine. It would not be miraculous of water on its own to turn to wine if it could do this by the means of natural process. The notion of a miracle is “super” natural inexplicable according to natural laws. This assumes that the identity of win is different the natural identity of water. To make this happen there would have to be a violation of the Law of Identity. That is to say, that water would not really have identity in the first place. To have identity is to be something specific. Water cannot be water and also wine at the same time according to its identity. Hence, for someone to say that there is a being that could do such an act is to prove that such a being is incoherent and cannot said to exist in reality. Reality itself is the proof that God does not exist. Hence either God exists (which is incoherent) or reality exists. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

Right, hence the primacy of existence. If it is mental in "nature" is it simply descriptive of an action? If it is not material can it be said to have identity?

Thanks. The grip analogy makes sense. Curious though how HB can be a dualist with Objectivist epistemology.

I have just started reading, “How We Know” and and in the section, “Consciousness as Irreducible” and I am wondering if someone can help me understand this a bit better. The part that I am hung up on is where Harry says, “Consciousness exists and matter exist” and then starts to talk about materielists. I am missing something conceptually. Can someone help me better understand conpeteptually the idea that consciousness and matter are seperate? It almost sound as if consciousness is something mystical, but I have always rejected mysticism on the grounds that it has no grounding in the natural world.

If it is not exactly a match then doens't this ontradict A = A and mean that in your example above that identity would be more like A = Ab?

But, isn't causation a result of identity as opposed to forces acting on the outside of the object?

If the law of identity states that a thing is what is, referring to all the charactacteristics that make it what it is in particular, how then is evolution possible? Is evolution not change over time? Is evolution simply a change in the code or is a change in identity via speciation? Is my understanding of identity incorrect or my understanding of evolution?

I am not making the connection between they don't have language to they cannot have concepts. Is not language the way that you are referring to it strictly human?

How can we be certain to any level that an animal can not identify units? Is this just an underlying assumption or has there been a test run to verify this claim? I am asking because I am reading OPAR and Leonard Peikoff mention this with a pretty good level of certainty. Just curious about the justification.

Does that mean I should take the hardest path in every endeavor? In this scenario, all I want to do is get to the top. I will use my local gym for my fitness needs.

If I want to get to the top of a mountain, two possible options are available to me. I can take a helicopter or a can climb it. What is appreciations relationship to value? Does appreciation come necessarily from struggle or from something else? My end goal is to get to the top. From an emotional standpoint will I appreciate being at the top if I do so at the expense of the struggle to get there (there will be a lot of secondary accomplishments ie; muscle growth, a better understanding of climbing) or will I appreciate being at the top simply because I have accomplished my goal. In other words what role does the amount of struggle place in achieving my values? Does struggle enhance the achievement of my goals or is it negligible to the achievement of my goals? So in a another example, a person that is given enough money (given the have values to sustain it) vs a person that has earned it through hard work....

What makes "sex" a higher value than an other value?

What do people think is right or wrong about this... Husband: I want to have sex tonight Wife: No Wife: Will you run to the store for me and get some eggs. Husband: Sure but only if when I return you will have sex with me Wife: ...but I don’t feel like it... Husband: No problem, so then when you feel like it...since I am agreeing to go to the store for you I would like for you at some point to have sex with me in return.... quid pro quo... Wife: I don’t want to trade favors for sex... Husband: Why not? You can ask me to do anything... I will do it as long as you will have sex with me in return....

The goal of the question is to remove bias. The scenario Mother is watching a movie where government is trying to find a boy. The boy is with a girl and they run to a “trustworthy” place. In each step of the movie electronic devices have been used to be tracked. Yet, in this trust worthy place the girl who was with the boy decided to call her uncle on a phone inside the trustworthy place. The mother claims that this is unreasonable and that everyone would know that the phones would be tapped. It was stated in response to that that it is not necessarily true that everyone would automatically know. The person that picked up the phone in the movie was a teenager. It was stated that it is Not unlikely that a teenager would pick up the phone not thinking about the consequences of the action. in order to demonstrate this the mother asked her teenage son to come in the room, to hear the scenario,and then to see how he would respond. The Son comes into the room the scenario is given and this is the question that is asked... Question A ”If you were in this same situation would you use the phone to call someone” ? tihe objection to the question by the other person was the it was leading the person to the answer. The alternate question that was given to remove bias is to ask this question instead, Question B ”If you were in this same scenario and you saw a phone who would be the first person that you would call”? Which question would be better to see how the Son would truly respond in this scenario and in order to remove any kid of bias?

What would be the benifit to the children?

Should a woman who is married attend the funeral of the ex. The context. The divorce was due to disrespect and verbal abuse. After several years the ex was forgiven and the ex was amicable and not the same as they used to be. I say that this is disrespectful to the current spouse. Here is something that was said to me that I am arguing against. The point of a funeral is to pay respect to the person that passed and to honor their life. This is because they had child with that person and that is meaningful. My question is who is this benefiting. If it is benefiting the spouse that is attending the funeral in what way are they benefiting that is not in the face of their current spouse? Also does not to “pay respect to someone” assume that the respect is owed to them? If the divorce was due to disrespect what is owed to the deceased? As far as compassion goes what about simply being compassionate to the person that decided to marry you and respect you and treat you very well and not go to the funeral of your ex? What are your thoughts?