God, Theism, Religion and Objectivism

[brian0918]

Elaborating on softwareNerd's point:

I ponder on God, and conceive of Him as a being of order. His creation behaves consistently, and therefore so must He. He must be an extremely rational being, with a mind that is highly ordered and logical. It thus makes sense by your reckoning that He must have been created, by Super-God - who is an obscenely rational being. Super-God in turn is so obscenely rational, orderly, and logical, that I believe Her to have been created by Ultra-God, who is an exceedingly, excessively, surpassingly rational being.

Of course, a simpler argument would just show that an entity could not have created everything without already being part of everything. The act of creation implies the pre-existence of time and physical material which one manipulates to create something else. The failure of your analogies make this clear - an architect doesn't poof the material of his creation into existence - he quarries it from the earth.

Edited April 10, 2010 by brian0918

[Jake_Ellison]

I have defined what I view God as, but I suppose I'll make it more blatant. I define God as a rational being of the highest intelligence and ability. When I look at creation, I cannot help but be amazed at what is around me, just the magnitude of existence is wonderful to behold. And then even more amazing is the fact that within this creation we've the capacity to create entirely new things that don't exist by default. When it is said that we are "made in the image of God", I take that to mean that we are given the capacity to think freely, and to create things.

Your definition is irrational, because it is not based on observed reality.

Picking up a rock and thinking that it is a flower doesn't make it a flower

Yes, that's true. You know why? Because existence is primary, and consciousness an independent part of existence. Allow me to rephrase that statement: "Picking up nothing and thinking that it is something doesn't make it something."

Your theory, that there was God, an intelligent consciousness, and he created Existence, contradicts the primacy of existence, and replaces it with the primacy of consciousness. That is the total denial of that "order", by which a rock is not a flower, just because a consciousness wills it to be one.

Now, if it so happens that God exists and designed everything

Begging the question fallacy. You can't use the premise "if God so happens to exist", to reach the "reasonable conclusion" that God is intelligent. "God might exist" requires evidence you have not presented. Until then, assuming it as a premise is irrational, and concluding anything from that premise, whether it's in accordance with the rules of logic or not, is not reasonable, or rational, it doesn't stand to reason, or any other way you wish to phrase it.

[Big B]

ahahahah...Substituting how I describe God's personality/nature is not the same thing as a justification for his existence.

I never made the point that because the universe is rational, that it must have a rational creator. This of course would lead to the can of worms argument way of thinking.

I always stated that IF God existed, then his nature would be that of a rational being.

One is an assumption about the inevitability of God's existence as a result of observing the universe(not the point i made at all.) The other, the actual point I made, is an if-then statement.

However, Jake made this point: "You can't use the premise "if God so happens to exist", to reach the "reasonable conclusion" that God is intelligent. "God might exist" requires evidence you have not presented. "

I smell the objectivism, but I don't fully agree with this line of thinking simply because I heavily enjoy thinking of what -could- be. It leads to interesting discussions and many times, in group format, can lead to an entirely new idea. It's something I and my friends enjoy doing, and it's one reason why I love Ayn Rand's work so much is because it provides such a solid, fresh approach towards new discussions.

I agree that there is a key point that I am lacking in my proof that God exists, but that wasn't really my goal here. But if all ideas were dismissed before they were completed, what kind of world would we live in?

[Plasmatic]

I always stated that IF God existed, then his nature would be that of a rational being.

If square-circles existed what nature would they have? If you can't answer this then you will understand why your not getting the responses you wanted. When stripped of all contradictory attributes, ones postulation of "god" is reduced to that of any hypothetical being of particular bounded finite nature. Let's say a lion-bear-fish,now would you sit pondering it's nature or go searching for one because it's attributes aren't incomensurate characteristics?

Edited April 10, 2010 by Plasmatic

[brian0918]

I smell the objectivism, but I don't fully agree with this line of thinking simply because I heavily enjoy thinking of what -could- be.

Square circles cannot be, nor can any other logical contradiction. That includes creator beings that act outside of time and exist in non-existence.

Contrary to your repeated claim that a God would be rational - if one were to find out that there is an entity which transcends existence and time, and so can exist apart from existence and act apart from time, that would negate the possibility of knowledge altogether, including the knowledge of the entity itself.

Edited April 10, 2010 by brian0918

[Jake_Ellison]

I smell the objectivism, but I don't fully agree with this line of thinking simply because I heavily enjoy thinking of what -could- be. It leads to interesting discussions and many times, in group format, can lead to an entirely new idea. It's something I and my friends enjoy doing, and it's one reason why I love Ayn Rand's work so much is because it provides such a solid, fresh approach towards new discussions.

Objectivism is not opposed to fiction. But you made false statements about reality, not fictional statements. There's a difference.

I agree that there is a key point that I am lacking in my proof that God exists, but that wasn't really my goal here. But if all ideas were dismissed before they were completed, what kind of world would we live in?

If false ideas were dismissed immediately, we'd be living in a great, happy world.

[Big B]

I'm getting the responses I expected, not that it hasn't been interesting, I think this has been a great discussion. My goal wasn't to prove the existence of God, but to logically demonstrate the idea that if God existed, he would be a rational being. I fully realize that objectivism doesn't allow for the discussion of any sort of conclusions being drawn before all premises are proven to exist, however, there are many things that existed outside the realms of our understanding that were only discovered long after most dismissed it as being impossible. The course of human history and invention is proof of this.

I realize that talking about properties and characteristics of a hypothetical object(a circle that could be a square..ect.) doesn't fit within objectivism. But still, my premise for the entire discussion is that we exist as we do today in an objective reality. And from this I drew conclusions about the only type of God that could exist, if he exists. Pointless discussion in terms of results? I guess so, but I had fun. So it's all good as far as I see it .

[Jake_Ellison]

I fully realize that objectivism doesn't allow for the discussion of any sort of conclusions being drawn before all premises are proven to exist, however, there are many things that existed outside the realms of our understanding that were only discovered long after most dismissed it as being impossible. The course of human history and invention is proof of this.

Inventions come from a rigorous study of reality, not from closing your eyes and seeing what pops up. I'd love to see you name a single statement from history, which was based entirely on fantasy instead of observation of reality, that later turned out to be true.

[Big B]

Inventions come from a rigorous study of reality, not from closing your eyes and seeing what pops up. I'd love to see you name a single statement from history, which was based entirely on fantasy instead of observation of reality, that later turned out to be true.

Any and -all- creative endeavors that exist. I write music, some of which pretty much involves closing my eyes and seeing what pops up. Also as far as I can remember, the way ideas even occur is either from A) Observing reality, or Discussing some concept of some kind.

Now in the example of B, you'd be inclined to say that even concepts that I discuss are only a product of observing reality. Now, this is true, our basis for thought is only given context by the reality that we perceive. It is the interpretation of these perceptions where you and I would differ. Any examples I listed as being "evidence" for why I hold the conviction that God exists, you wouldn't see as valid as they could also be attributed to the result of simple cause and effect, a possibility that I do not disregard.

Therefore I suggest we discontinue this discussion and move on .

[mynameisyang]

10: I don’t blame God, I blame you!

9: You say this because that’s how you feel.

8: extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence.

7: you are correct about your level of understanding.

6: You say the evolution is full of fairytales and fables, yet you believe all life forms including plants, trees, insects, birds, fish, reptiles and mammals were created by God - As if bible isn't the biggest fairytale of them all.

5: 1 chance in 10 to the 40,ooo power means a creator is even more unlikely.

4: Yes that’s how you should call me.

3: You say a closed system can be defined however the observer wants, I say a closed system can be defined however I wants!

2: Creator and absolute truth… Creator or absolute truth… The Creator is me I guess.

1: there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of Human!

[Big B]

10: I don’t blame God, I blame you!

9: You say this because that’s how you feel.

8: extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence.

7: you are correct about your level of understanding.

6: You say the evolution is full of fairytales and fables, yet you believe all life forms including plants, trees, insects, birds, fish, reptiles and mammals were created by God - As if bible isn't the biggest fairytale of them all.

5: 1 chance in 10 to the 40,ooo power means a creator is even more unlikely.

4: Yes that’s how you should call me.

3: You say a closed system can be defined however the observer wants, I say a closed system can be defined however I wants!

2: Creator and absolute truth… Creator or absolute truth… The Creator is me I guess.

1: there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of Human!

10: Most people direct their anger at humanity at God. I don't really understand your point.

9: Where and what? And how is your claim any different?

8: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made" One can either take this perspective, or the perspective that thinks that the more we understand about creation, the less likely there could be a creator, which makes absolutely no sense. When you come across an object like a car, the fact that you can understand it's inner workings doesn't make it less likely that was designed. Or you could take the objectivist stance that "God doesn't exist because I say so."

7: ?

6: IDK where you are getting this list from because that is not how i feel about evolution. Besides, the bible even clearly states this when God created the animals: "Let the earth bring forth life." This seems to indicate that he created the necessary forces that would facilitate what we observe as biological evolution. Evolution does not contradict God unless you want it to, or maybe you believe God would have created things "magically" and left the universe unable to be scientifically validatable which is entirely an assumption that has no basis in reality.

5: I assume you mean the chances of everything happening with no direct cause are still a higher probability than a creator. I'd like to see your reasoning other than how you feel. In other words, why is it more likely to assume a natural explanation rather than a designed one? Why is a natural explanation more scientific than a designed one anyways? Saying a designed universe is un-scientific and mystical is like saying all mankind achieves is un-scientific and mystical. And don't retort with, "Whoa I can't even begin to explain why this is stupid," Please refute it with a respectful manner. And "because we haven't proven a creator exists, it's unscientific to think that there is one" is lazy thinking. It might be "unscientific", but so is everything before it is discovered/proven.

And before you even consider saying the "God did it" mentality is lazy thinking as a refute for my point, realize that I completely agree with that. I despise people that use God as an excuse to disregard scientific discovery. Because the truth of the matter is that the existence of God doesn't effect how we should go about learning about creation. Only people who force themselves into a state of ignorance think they are at odds with each other.

And you say that I force myself into a state of ignorance because I acknowledge the possibility that God might exist? I've clearly shown that the existence of God doesn't impede scientific progress unless people choose to stop learning and just say "God did it." Yes people do that, but I AM NOT one of those people.

4: ?

3: What?

2: ?

1: Well without a consciousness to observe creation, there's no real context for it's existence other than itself. It exists, but without a consciousness no one is around to say "A is A"...but I'm really not sure what your this point is trying to achieve.

EDIT: My apologies mynameisyang, I hadn't read the earlier pages in this thread so I didn't know that you were referring to a previous post here .

Of course, a simpler argument would just show that an entity could not have created everything without already being part of everything. The act of creation implies the pre-existence of time and physical material which one manipulates to create something else. The failure of your analogies make this clear - an architect doesn't poof the material of his creation into existence - he quarries it from the earth.

My understanding of the story of creation isn't that God created something from nothing. The first statement of most translations does state"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," but this doesn't necessitate a "something from nothing" interpretation. The very next phrase is : "Now the earth was formless and empty" Which could mean that there was some kind of form to the physical universe that existed parallel with God.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Big B

[Plasmatic]

"the earth was formless" is a contradiction. An entity (earth) has form or else It's not an entity. Also the "beginning" of what ?

[Big B]

"the earth was formless" is a contradiction. An entity (earth) has form or else It's not an entity. Also the "beginning" of what ?

It's not a contradiction. I take formless to simply mean without form, not that the substance to create it doesn't exist.

Even in a purely naturalistic universe the earth was "formless" at one point. In that formless state you couldn't really call it "the earth", but "was" is referring to it's non-state in -past- tense, the concept of "the earth" was formless at one point. Not that the earth itself was formless.

[Booknerd]

I would like to humbly point something out as people on both sides blather generalizations. I won't argue as to whether there is evidence that god exists, because, on some level, it cannot be rationally proved.

Objectivism is a philosophy that has a standard of morals. It states that it is immoral for an individual's intrinsic rights to be taken away. The reason for this is simple. If it were not intrinsically immoral for "rights" to be violated, then rights would exist only in counciousness, and as you say, A is A. Thus, rights would not exist, thus, there is nothing to keep a fellow man from taking those imaginary rights, thus man would be forced to depend on fellow man, which contradicts Rand's principles.

That then begs the question as to what morality is and who allows it to exist. The anwser is either man (thus forced to depend on fellow men) or God. In a weird way, I beleive Objectivism necessitates the existence of some higher being or force, which would be irrational.

Wait, did I just twist objectivism into a paradox? Maybe it was there all along.

[RationalBiker]

I beleive Objectivism necessitates the existence of some higher being or force, which would be irrational.

Wait, did I just twist objectivism into a paradox? Maybe it was there all along.

No, you did not just twist it into a paradox. You merely demonstrated a lack of understanding Objectivism.

Edited May 29, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Booknerd]

I may not understand it, but it'd be nice if you would explain exactly what I don't understand

[RationalBiker]

I may not understand it, but it'd be nice if you would explain exactly what I don't understand

Have you read any of Rand's books on Objectivism? What source of information are you using to make your claims?

Can you state Rand's basis for the existence of man's rights?

Why do you believe Objectivism necessitates the existence of a God? What is your evidence for this belief? Do you know what Objectivism says about "arbitrary claims"?

[dream_weaver]

I may not understand it, but it'd be nice if you would explain exactly what I don't understand

Why is your grasp of it somebody elses responsability? The ten unsubstantiated assertions at the beginning of this thread only underscore the failure to have grasped the axiomatic underpinnings that Objectivsim has to offer that Primitive philosophy never managed to mature past.

[Grames]

Objectivism is a philosophy that has a standard of morals. It states that it is immoral for an individual's intrinsic rights to be taken away. The reason for this is simple. If it were not intrinsically immoral for "rights" to be violated, then rights would exist only in counciousness, and as you say, A is A. Thus, rights would not exist, thus, there is nothing to keep a fellow man from taking those imaginary rights, thus man would be forced to depend on fellow man, which contradicts Rand's principles.

That then begs the question as to what morality is and who allows it to exist. The anwser is either man (thus forced to depend on fellow men) or God. In a weird way, I beleive Objectivism necessitates the existence of some higher being or force, which would be irrational.

Wait, did I just twist objectivism into a paradox? Maybe it was there all along.

You went wrong when you settled on the understanding that rights are intrinsic. They are not. I could say rights are objective, but I'm fairly certain you don't yet get the distinction between the intrinsic, the subjective and the objective. The intrinsic is in external things (only), the subjective is in your own consciousness (only), the objective is in both.

It is also wrong to state that the standard of morals is the political idea of rights. Rights are a derivative idea that comes way after morals. Basing morals on rights is a circular argument, which is a kind of paradox as you described. Objectivism does not incorporate such rookie mistake. Morals are based on egoism, which means rights are also based on egoism indirectly.