Drregaleagle

On another thread entitle "The true nature of religion in civilization's development", Black Wolf raised a good point. This thought should cause us to ponder the nature of absolute certainty. The critical characteristic of absolute certainty is that certainty develops from the definition of one's terms. Relating to Black Wolf's example, how would you ever notice a correlation of the Maclaurin series with sine values in the first place? If one took a protractor and drew many right triangles, the side ratios of the triangles could be measured with a ruler and the sine values could be calculated. These calculations are not based off of pure deductive reasoning, but the presumably inductive reasoning of the protractor and ruler markings. The measuring instruments are not necessarily accurate. The Maclaurin series values could be infinitely calculated until one noticed that it didn't agree with the empirically observed values. Obviously, one of the methods is wrong. The reason the observed values must be wrong is because the Maclaurin series determines the sine values by definition. Before Maclaurin series, we didn't have precise values for trigonometric functions. Also, mathematical objects only exist, however objectively, in the mind. We define and represent objects such as point, line, circle, angle, etc with what we sense in the real world but we don't sense the objects themselves. We develop the concepts of geometric and mathematics objects by thinking about the nature of what we perceive.

The universe is potentially infinite and not actually infinite because the universe itself is merely a concept of set theory; we determine that certain things exist and then we assume that we can construct a set of all that exists, the universe. The problem is that this set is a concept of our mind so your god must be a concept of your mind. Points and lines are potentially infinite in certain respects also so they are just abstractions of the mind and not existing things.

In short, Happy Thanksgiving in honor and memory of the Pilgrims' contributions to America.

Fair enough. Regarding color, it is objective but still observer dependent. Color, by definition, is a state at which an observer sees it and a concept of the mind. A color is an attribute of sensory interpretation, a concept used in thought. Without any concept formers, concepts wouldn't exist. Matter exists independently of sense perception, but our sense perceptions of matter do not exist outside of our minds per the Law of Identity. Regarding the unmoved mover, he must be unmoved. He cannot be in motion presently. Any event that created the universe would have operated under certain laws of creation. Therefore, this event would only have created the known universe and not the universe by definition. A being cannot exist outside of the universe.

I'm not equating two per se, but I think territoriality is part of understanding property. Animals can understand food ownership too sometimes, but your example shows that obviously sometimes they don't. Just like humans.

Which means that a first cause does not actually exist. Nope, the idea that an unmoved mover must have existed to ignite the universe is contingent on the postulate that everything is in motion. Since an unmoved mover is not in motion, he cannot currently exist in this system. Therefore, the unmoved mover would have existed in the beginning, but not currently. Hence, he died. Reread the proof, you don't understand it.

An omnipotent God could not redefine objective truth. If you at 3:00 P.M. ate a late lunch on 11/23/2010 and drove to Wal-Mart, an omnipotent God could never ultimately change the substance of such truth. You might counter with the fact that God could travel back in time and alter events, but that time travel would only be from your perspective. Time is always moving forward from some frame of reference so it would still be an objective fact that from God's perspective at 3:00 P.M. you ate lunch and went to Wal-Mart. You might also argue that words can mean multiple things. They can, but the substance of the words intended meaning cannot change. God cannot change the fact that "A is A" in the same sense. This would destroy the ontological argument. The transcendental argument for God is definitely the most clever in my opinion, but it has other flaws. This argument postulates that Logic and the laws of Logic are God, or at least one person of their holy trinity. The major flaw here is that the existence of logic is contingent on the existence of the human mind. To contend that logic exists without the mind is to claim that there is color without any eyes. There isn't. Without the sense of sight, the colors "red", "green", "yellow", etc wouldn't exist as they are human or animal perceptions by definition.

I probably should have titled the thread "the true nature of the philosophy that emerged from religion in civilization's development". I was considering religion synonymous with philosophy but the mystical aspects are not, once it is rationally demonstrated that they are mystical.

The number of events between two events is potentially infinite as it is potentially infinite because every event can be broken down into sub-events. The idea of an "event" is a human product similar to a point. Events, like points, only potentially exist as they are infinitely small. According to Aristotle, the originator of the thought behind the Kalam and Cosmological Argument, the Unmoved Mover must be the source of all motion. However, Aristotle also postulates that everything moves. Therefore, the source of all motion must not exist currently. Hence, that god died at the inception of the universe if one accepts Aristotle's argument. Aristotle contradicts himself with this argument. As for the all-powerful type of God, that cannot exist in reality either because it ultimately leads to other logical contradictions regardless of the argument put forth. There is or was value in this conception of a Cosmological God for human convenience, but it doesn't exist.

It is, but that doesn't mean that animals never understand private property. Charles Cornish wrote a book "Animals of today, their life and conversation" where he shows examples of dogs respecting property rights. A quick Google search of "animals understand property" yields several instances that shows a rudimentary concept of property rights in animals.

I've been following Neurosky and the research of Tan Lee for about three years now. This is the most likely imminent advancement that will make a difference in our lives. The machine relies on something like an EEG machine that reads brainwaves instead of buttons. The greatest difficulty with the design is that our brainwaves are continuous and have ranges. It's easiest to set up the machine to receive exact frequencies so much of the recent research has been about getting it to work at a wide range of frequencies. Another obstacle is the interference from other devices, but wires reduce this a lot.

Peikoff acknowledges that experimentation refutes mysticism. One needs to be able to interpret sensation, to reason, accurately to experiment. Reasoning skills are not merely innate qualities that we evolved; they are sharpened with practice, study, and the advice of others. If this weren't true, no philosopher would ever need to write any books to convey his philosophy because everyone would instinctively know it. Reason must be developed. Since reasoning must be developed, people will naturally always hold to mystical ideas until their reasoning sharpens. However, it is the recognition of reason's primacy that matters. I think this is why it is important to understand how ideas evolve. And mysticism doesn't end with atheism. A thousand years from now people may very well consider some of Ayn Rand's views mystical. I don't know which ones, but anyone will ultimately make logical errors.

Correlation implies causation in a controlled study unless the correlation can be explained otherwise. If you reject this, you reject the scientific method. Neither is Enlightenment thought; the Enlightenment also produced the disastrous French Revolution. Certain aspects of Protestant Christianity were mostly just a US phenomenon by 1700. Yes it was and those historical principles came from religion, particularly Protestant Christianity. You still don't seem to understand the difference between Christianity and a philosophy that evolved from Christianity. Many Objectivists cite Samuel Adams as a major influence on American political thought, rightfully so. Sam Adams was probably a closet Deist or a religious pragmatist, but he stressed the fact that his ideas largely came from his Puritan ancestors. The other Adams, John Adams, was explicitly not a normal Christian. He was a Unitarian, and he readily identified the Reformation as his intellectual precursor on many occasions. He wrote "Let not Geneva be forgotten or despited. Religious liberty owes it much respect, Servetus notwithstanding.” John Adams also wrote, "After Martin Luther had introduced into Germany the liberty of thinking in matters of religion, and erected the standard of reformation, John Calvin, a native of Noyon, in Picardie, of a vast genius, singular eloquence, various erudition, and polished taste, embraced the cause of reformation. In the books which he published, and in the discourses which he held in the several cities of France, he proposed one hundred and twenty-eight articles in opposition to the creed of the Roman Catholic church. These opinions were soon embraced with ardor, and maintained with obstinacy, by a great number of persons of all conditions. The asylum and the centre of this new sect was Geneva, a city situated on the lake ancienty called Lemanus, on the frontiers of Savoy, which had shaken off the yoke of its bishop and the Duke of Savoy, and erected itself into a republic, under the title of a free city, for the sake of liberty of conscience. " The Works of John Adams, edited by Charles F. Adams. No, but the views that did establish the United States evolved from certain mysticism. Mysticism can only be refuted by experimentation, whether it be "thought experimentation" or otherwise. Peikoff readily acknowledges this, but he goes from Thomist mysticism to the Enlightenment. By skipping Protestant mysticism, he gives a weak impression of US history.

Actually, it is A according to the primary source documents. A) Jamestown's founding statement reads: “Wee, greatly commending and graciously accepting of their desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to the golire of His divine Majestie in propagating of Christian religion to suche people as yet live in darknesse and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worshippe of God and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in those parts to humane civilitie and to a setled and quiet governmente, doe by theise our lettres patents graciously accepte of and agree to theire humble and well intentioned desires;” So officially, even Jamestown was founded to spread Christianity. I think the reasons behind the religion were economic and practical, but the official reason for Jamestown's founding was explicitly religious too. It was the Industrial Revolution of Carnegie, Bell, and Edison that marked the evolution into atheism.

Since causality is inherently a potential, an infinite regress of causality is potential also. When you say that turning the key starts the car, the turn of the key isn't the direct cause. There are a potentially infinite number of steps between the turn of the key and the start of the car. This isn't an actual infinity. This is why there's an infinite regress of causality. This argument is called the Kalam argument. I personally think it's awful, but a lot of people are taught it. It isn't rational at all because it worships a dead and impotent unmoved mover. That being said, Catholics, William Lane Craig, and all Muslims use this argument.