Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thomist Versus Objectivist Metaphysics.

Rate this topic


dark_unicorn

Recommended Posts

No one doubts that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or any of the other people never actually existed ...

I doubt their existence. And so does Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason. Not only does Paine doubt the existence of Moses, he thinks that the character of Moses is a horrible, horrible man:

The character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most horrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he was the wretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or on the pretence of religion; and under that mask, or that infatuation, committed the most unexampled atrocities that are to be found in the history of any nation. --Thomas Paine

Did you really mean to say that nobody doubts the existence of Bible characters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis does not state that "in the beginning there was nothing" ... There is nothing that necessitates an empty existence preceding God, although I will concede that many theists seem to think this to be the case

Is it your position that there was something before God created anything? Have you forgotten John 1:3?

All things were made by God; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

This seems pretty clear to me. God made everything. Unless you have a different view, I believe my initial argument against God stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Argument Against God (Part 2)

The "logical" theist will agree that a supernatural God could never have created the natural realm, as I have explained in my first argument. This is a good sign that he has a little respect for logic, namely the law of identity. He agrees that A is A. Zero is zero. Nothingness is nothingness and cannot be shaped into somethingness, even by the hands of a supernatural craftsman.

Unfortunately, most "logical" theists, at this point, tend not toward atheism, but rather toward a seemingly more "logical" theism. God, they now tell us, must be a naturally existing entity, because logic tells us that he cannot be supernatural, as most other theists imagine him.

God, regardless to what an irrational mystic asserts, is essentially something. If he exists, he has a metaphysical nature that functions as an existence, this much can be deduced from the nature of existence. --Dark Unicorn
This, however, puts the "logical" theist in an interesting situation. For, he must now try to explain what he means by a natural God, one that has a "metaphysical nature." And almost without fail, the "logical" theist concludes that his natural God is the Cause of all effects in the universe.

God is the enforcer and originator of the natural laws, and thus is always present in every event and in the causes preceding it.

Basically, God is the power behind everything that happens.

What the "logical" theist fails to realize is that he has once again committed an error in logic. For, God could never be the cause of all effects in the universe. He could never be the reason for everything. If God is natural, then he has identity, and if he has identity, then he exists in some place, somewhere. And thus being located in a place, God cannot be everywhere at the same time. He cannot, for example, be spinning the moons of Jupiter while simultaneously knee-deep in the Indian Ocean shoving a tsunami at the people of Singapore. Logic and science tell us that it is impossible for God to be in two places at the same time. Even if God could be forming a retarded fetus in the womb of an earthling, he certainly could not be, in the same moment, exploding some overheated gases on star X in galaxy Y a zillion light years away.

Confronted with this particular problem, the "logical" theist typically declares that, well, God must then be everywhere at the same time. Clearly God cannot guide a gang banger's drive-by bullet through a toddler's forehead in South Los Angeles, if he's busy giving HIV to babies in Ethiopia. He must therefore be in all locations at all times.

But, again, we know from even the most rudimentary logic and science that this is impossible. Thus, the theist must return to his absurd contention that God exists because it is impossible for him to exist. Again, we are confronted with the convenient mystery of miracles, which is, as best I can tell, the ending point for all theology.

There is no argument against argumentum miraculum, other than to point out that it is a rejection of logic. The miraclist cannot claim to have reason on his side. His assertion, in essence, is an admission of his rejection of reasonableness as the standard for belief. In the place of reasonableness, he has substituted absurdity. As the famous saying goes, he believes it because it is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

*** Mod's note: Post moved from another thread ***

It is not irrational to think the possibility of a God-creature or creatures, but it is irrational to make any statements about its/their character and desires. Since the possibility is open, however, the search is also not irrational, however unlikely you are to actually turn up solid answers.

An undefined God is meaningless. Until you define or describe your conception of God, he is neither possible nor impossible. He is meaningless.

Rational theists tend to realize that the moment they begin defining their God, he in fact becomes impossible. This is why they rarely define their God. They settle for the belief that God is "unknowable," i.e., meaningless.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added note on moved posts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what exactly are you suggesting mr swig? that it's better to have a defined God based on things that can't even be proven? That's irrational. Besides, life has no meaning either. Ethics comes into play only after the decision of continued life is made, what for? there is no reason except the affirmitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what exactly are you suggesting mr swig? that it's better to have a defined God based on things that can't even be proven?

I think Mr. Swig is suggesting that either you have a defined God, or you don't have a God. To leave something undefined, but claim that it still is, is a non-sequitir. I'm pretty sure Mr. Swig opts for not having a God at all. He is just challenging your agnosticism.

Are you familiar with the Objectivist position on the supernatural?

Besides, life has no meaning either. Ethics comes into play only after the decision of continued life is made, what for? there is no reason except the affirmitive.

I'm not even sure what this means exactly, but it looks familiar. ;) Seeing this makes me think you didn't understand my explanation in the other thread because I'm not sure why it is relevant here.

MR if you have some questions about Objectivism, I would suggest that there is a whole section of the forum, aptly labeled "Questions about Objectivism". I'm sure people would be happy to introduce you to some of the ideas the philosophy has to offer, and that are relevant to what you're going through right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what exactly are you suggesting mr swig? that it's better to have a defined God based on things that can't even be proven? That's irrational.

Yes, that's irrational. But it is more irrational to base one's God on nothing whatsoever. At least the theist who defines his God has a little respect for words and concepts. To him, the word "God" is not entirely meaningless. His irrational definition is unprovable, but at least it is a starting point for a debate.

In your case, where do we start? I have no clue what you mean by God. Is it a person, place, or thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Mr. Swig opts for not having a God at all. He is just challenging your agnosticism.

To be clear, I'm operating under the assumption that midniterequiem is a theist, because he said that he believes in God. I don't believe he is an agnostic.

And, yes, I opt for not having a God. Besides, Pippi Longstocking is much more inspiring, if anyone is looking for someone to worship.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) You don't have to call me MR. haha, I'm sure you're older than I.

;) My current God theory is that God exists, has consciousness and facilitated the creation of the universe. No, I have no evidence haha XD

C) Yes, an undefined God has 0 meaning, but that's what the searching is for. The problem is that I really don't think I'll ever find any conclusive answers, unless he shows himself to me in a tangible way.

D) All of that is basically a "yes, I have no idea." lol

about the original, I voted for religion too as more dangerous, but i agree with moebius. When asked "socialism or religion?" you sort of just have to make a quick-call. If you think of it in terms of how bad they can escalate, I would think religion still takes the cake because socialism at its worst (i.e. Communism) already failed once, but religious wars still persist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) You don't have to call me MR. haha, I'm sure you're older than I.

Heh...that's what I thought he meant at first too, but then I realized the MR is an acronym for MidnightRequiem

My current God theory is that God exists, has consciousness and facilitated the creation of the universe. No, I have no evidence haha XD

C) Yes, an undefined God has 0 meaning, but that's what the searching is for. The problem is that I really don't think I'll ever find any conclusive answers, unless he shows himself to me in a tangible way.

D) All of that is basically a "yes, I have no idea." lol

I was in your boat for a while (indeed a fair number of us were when we were younger). That said, there's a key element that's missing from you analysis. When there's no evidence either way, or worse, evidence is impossible (such as the existence of an infinite, bodiless consciousness that exists outside of tangible existence), then that claim becomes arbitrary. Arbitrary claims are those of "pigs fly when you aren't looking, but you can't prove otherwise," and logically must be thrown out until evidence is presented. The lack of the ability to prove it, and the lack of the evidence, means that there is no logical reason to believe it. Knowledge only comes from discovery, not from mere conjecture: saying "I believe that X did Y" does not itself make it true, there must be a reason for that assertion.

To quote Rand from ITOE (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 46)

Objective validity is determined by reference to the factions of reality. But it is man who has to identify the facts; objectivity requires discovery by man - and cannot precede man's knowledge, i.e., cannot require omniscience. Man cannot know more than he has discovered - and he may not know less than the evidence indicates, if the concepts and definitions are to be held objectively valid
(bold mine)

What this simply means is that knowledge about God is actually NOT knowledge, but is rather meaningless, as there are no pertaining facts - only conjecture.

Edited by Chops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current God theory is that God exists, has consciousness and facilitated the creation of the universe. No, I have no evidence haha ... The problem is that I really don't think I'll ever find any conclusive answers, unless he shows himself to me in a tangible way.

If you want God to show himself to you in a tangible way, then I suggest you alter your theory a bit so that he has a body to go along with his consciousness. At least then it will be possible, in theory, for him to tickle your bum--or whisper sweet nothings into your ear.

I am pleased to see that you do indeed have some idea of God. However, I have no desire to turn this particular thread into yet another full-fledged debate over the existence of God. Instead, I'll point you to another thread on this forum if you wish to read my argument against God as creator of the universe.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I have no desire to turn this particular thread into yet another full-fledged debate over the existence of God. Instead, I'll point you to another thread on this forum if you wish to read my argument against God as creator of the universe.

Good call on that. This thread is about which poses more of a threat between socialism and religion. Perhaps it's a good idea to have a mod split the irrelevant posts off into another thread, as the discussion of the existence of God isn't exactly relevant to this particular topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
2. The theory of evolution states that all life on earth originated from inanimate matter, and thus proceeds to categorize nature based on observable material phenomena. There is no contradiction between this and my beliefs about the way

Not so. ToE has nothing to say about abiogenesis, the emergence of living stuff from non-living stuff. The theory does state that all life on earth that now exists originated with one or a few kinds of primitive life many billions of years ago. The various species arose by natural processes which are primarily mutation (including cross overs) and natural selection (the interaction between the organism and the environment strictly in the domain of physical laws).

It is entirely possible the the originating life forms came to this planet on comets or meteors. Of course this leaves the question of how these off earth life forms originated unanswered. Or the first primitive life forms originated on this planet through some kind of natural process. To this date, there is no theory of abiogenesis that is generally accepted. It is an open question of how life came about in the first place. In any case, ToE is about how current life forms came from the primitive original forms by variation and natural selection.

I recommend that you read -What Evolution Is- by Ernst Mayr. Mayr was one of the leading evolution theorists, some say the greatest since Charles Darwin, himself.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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