valjean Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 I haven't read any of Rand's nonfiction yet besides The Romantic Manifesto, so I am honestly asking this question and not trying to argue it. I see that Rand advocated reason, but I don't see how God can be disproven and thus how Rand could have been an atheist and not an agnostic. Could someone please explain her position specifically? Or point me to a place online where I can read about this from an Objectivist standpoint? I recently heard some talk about the nature of infinity etc. -- I don't think you can convince me with that because it was too abstract for me to really, truly understand unless it can be explained very coherently. Thanks!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tettrabyte Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 (edited) I haven't read any of Rand's nonfiction yet besides The Romantic Manifesto, so I am honestly asking this question and not trying to argue it. I see that Rand advocated reason, but I don't see how God can be disproven and thus how Rand could have been an atheist and not an agnostic. Could someone please explain her position specifically? Or point me to a place online where I can read about this from an Objectivist standpoint? I recently heard some talk about the nature of infinity etc. -- I don't think you can convince me with that because it was too abstract for me to really, truly understand unless it can be explained very coherently. Thanks!! Firstly I do not claim to be an expert in objectivsm, so someone who is more knowledged, should correct me if I am wrong. But essentially there is no proof that there is a god, so there is no reason to say there is a possibilty of god. This would be a skeptical claim, in my opinion. So it would irrational to say that something could exist that goes against reason, in this case there is no proof of god and god as it is generally concieved would violate physics, the laws of existences and the axioms that objectivsm is built upon. One of the best places to look is Objectivsm the Philosophy of Ayn Rand or the ARI website. Does anyone know of a clear writing on why atheism instead of agnoticism? "They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it 'another dimension,' which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it 'the future,' which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out." [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged] From a 1964 interview in Playboy magazine: Playboy: "Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?" Rand: "Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy." Edit:Read the Thread about religion and Objectivsm Tettra Edited May 6, 2005 by Tettrabyte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mathis Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 I haven't read any of Rand's nonfiction yet besides The Romantic Manifesto, so I am honestly asking this question and not trying to argue it. I see that Rand advocated reason, but I don't see how God can be disproven and thus how Rand could have been an atheist and not an agnostic. Could someone please explain her position specifically? Or point me to a place online where I can read about this from an Objectivist standpoint? I recently heard some talk about the nature of infinity etc. -- I don't think you can convince me with that because it was too abstract for me to really, truly understand unless it can be explained very coherently. Thanks!! The premise of "God," which generally is understood to mean an omnipotent being, is self-contradictory. If God is omnipotent, couldn't he create an object so heavy that it could not be moved? An omnipotent being must certainly have the power to create such an object; otherwise, he would not be omnipotent. But if an object cannot be moved, then no power, including God, can move it. If God cannot move a particular object, then he is no longer omnipotent. In other words, the concept of God is logically invalid. Supposing the possibility of a god is to suppose that logic is invalid. And without logic, just how is knowledge obtained? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 The brief answer is that claims for the existence of God are arbitrary. What does this mean? Well, take a seemingly silly example: do you believe in elves and gremlins? One does not say that gremlins "might" exist, because there is no evidence for gremlins. The same for God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valjean Posted May 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 The premise of "God," which generally is understood to mean an omnipotent being, is self-contradictory. If God is omnipotent, couldn't he create an object so heavy that it could not be moved? An omnipotent being must certainly have the power to create such an object; otherwise, he would not be omnipotent. But if an object cannot be moved, then no power, including God, can move it. If God cannot move a particular object, then he is no longer omnipotent. In other words, the concept of God is logically invalid. Supposing the possibility of a god is to suppose that logic is invalid. And without logic, just how is knowledge obtained? Some say god wouldn't have to follow logic, but logic could still exist and knowledge could still be obtained. So this doesn't fully answer my question. Decartes, specifically, argues that God can make 2+2=5, a square have 5 sides, and can lift a stone heavier than he can lift. agnonstic n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. atheist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (both from dictionary.com) softwareNerd - despite God's existence being arbitrary, I still think it would take facts to say affirmatively that God does not exist. So agnosticism still seems to make more sense. Practically, for me, being an agnostic or an atheist would make no difference--but in theorey it does matter. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far--I had outside help with the Descartes thing. Please continue to point out logical fallacies in anything I've said or try to explain better to me the Objectivist position regarding atheism (if there is anything else to be said for it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spano Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 softwareNerd - despite God's existence being arbitrary, I still think it would take facts to say affirmatively that God does not exist. This view is actually a fallacy, because the onus of proof is on he who asserts the existence of something or claims to have some knowledge. If someone told you that there exist flying pigs or pink elephants, it is not up to you to search the globe and catalogue every creature you can find, and then point to the absense of pink elephants as proof they don't exist. In other words, it is a fallacy to demand a disproof of a negative, or to prove that something doesn't exist. The fallacy lies in the assumption that it *might* exist in the first place. There is simply no reason to believe a pink elephant, much less an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, and infinite being called God exists. Thus, agnosticism is fallacious because it grants the *possibility* of existence to something on no rational or factual basis whatever. To rephrase your statement, it would take facts to say affirmatively that God DOES exist, not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 softwareNerd - despite God's existence being arbitrary, I still think it would take facts to say affirmatively that God does not exist. What facts would it take to say that gremlins do not exist? Please list the specific facts. Before you do, I'd suggest you search the forum for previous threads on Atheism Agnosticism etc. This ground has been trampled a few times before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valjean Posted May 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Spano--what you're saying seems the same as the point softwareNerd made about god being arbitrary. I guess, to answer your quesion softwareNerd, that there are no facts that could be used to prove that gremlins don't exist. Same goes for god. Can't seem to prove or disprove the bugger. Sorry I didn't thourougly search earlier. I think I'd just find what I'm finding here and be unconvinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxixcxk Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Valjean, how does one acquire knowledge? (If you go through the steps, then apply those steps to the proposition of God existence, then you should be able settle your own question.) Philosophical skepticism isn't withholding judgement; it's implicitly and insidiously stating that knowledge is not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 It's like Spano said. Try this example: In a court of law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. It would be absurd for the prosecution to *arbitrarily* (randomly) decide to prosecute someone, and tell them to prove that they didn't do it, whithout having any evidence that they did. Imagine the existence of God being put on trial. The people who believe in God are the prosecution. They are the ones making a claim. They have to back up that claim before it can even go to trial. There is no solid evidence suggesting that God exists. So, it never goes to "trial" (debate/discussion). Since there is no trial, there is no case (for God). "innocent until proven guilty" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valjean Posted May 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 Thanks to everyone who's helped out in this thread. I understand now!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Rexton Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 (edited) Thanks to everyone who's helped out in this thread. I understand now!!! I really don't think you do, because the definitive answer to your question lies in Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology--which you seem to have read nothing about. The fundamental reasons for Objectivism's atheism is 1. In metaphysics: the principle of the primacy of existence and the law of identity 2. In epistemology: sense perception of reality as the base of knowledge reason as the only means of knowledge logic as the fundamental method of knowledge The metaphysical principles are the primary reasons for rejecting the existence of God--any god. The principle of the primacy of existence precludes the existence of any supernatural, conscious being responsible for the creation and/or maintenance of the universe. The law of identity precludes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being. The epistemological principles preclude any means and method of knowledge other than logical reasoning from sense percepetion (e.g., faith, feeling, intuition, etc.), so the whole claim that "God is supra-logical" is itself nonsense and can be dismissed with no second thoughts. To truly understand these principles (and therefore understand Objectivism), you'll have to do some indepth study and reading of Ayn Rand's writings, and not rely solely on forums such as this. I'd highly recommend you read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand for a more thorough explication of the aforementioned principles. [edited for spelling and grammatical errors, and added the last sentence] Edited May 8, 2005 by Tom Rexton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cole Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 There are a few reasons why Objectivists are not agnostic; From an etymological standpoint, the word "atheist" simply means "without theism"- without a belief in God. It's a negative belief system- not a positive one. You don't have to prove anything in order to be properly classified as an "atheist." In fact, you don't even have to know of the concept of God. An atheist merely lacks theism, which is a positive belief. There is no middle-ground between theism and atheism. A person cannot be agnostic without also being either a theist or an athiest. If you are having a problem grasping this then I can point you to a thread in which I explained it in more detail. Since theism is necessarily a positive belief (an assertion of the truth), it carries the onus of proof. The atheist is not in the position to prove anything, since he is not the one making the positive claim. The fact that theists cannot prove God's existence does not mean that the issue is up in the air, and we should all conclude that we cannot know the answer. If something is said to exist, but there is no evidence of its existence, on what basis should we hold that it is even a possibility? The claim that God exists is almost always made arbitrarily, and therefore cannot even be discussed. There is nothing to debate. The theists' argument is full of conclusions with no premises. Dr. Peikoff refutes the agnostic position of "I don't know" by asking, "What don't you know?" What evidence exists in support of God's existence which you are unaware of or ignoring? An arbitrarily assertion of the truth has no ties to reality, and therefore should not be accepted as being true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucketHead Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Hello. What is an Objectivists answer to the question, "what created the universe"..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 What do you mean by "created"? Why do you assume the universe was created? On what basis? Using what observations? By what method of reasoning do you arrive at this conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucketHead Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 What do you mean by "created"? Why do you assume the universe was created? On what basis? Using what observations? By what method of reasoning do you arrive at this conclusion? Oh I see, because it's virtually impossible to answer those sorts of questions, one is effectively forced into being reasonable and concluding that the only possible assumption is that the universe is eternal. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Oh I see, because it's virtually impossible to answer those sorts of questions, one is effectively forced into being reasonable and concluding that the only possible assumption is that the universe is eternal. Au contraire, I would say that the purpose is to encourage a cessation of unwarranted assumptions of any kind. The ONLY way to answer those sorts of questions is to discover a sufficient quantity of information about the universe as to be able to draw conclusions. Apart from that, no other assertions have or can have any validity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dufresne Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 What is an Objectivists answer to the question, "what created the universe"..? The universe is everything that exists. What existed before anything existed that could have created everything that exists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucketHead Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 "If you need firm and indisputable physical proofs of God's existence, that's too bad because you're not going to get them in this life" Here's what a theist said, LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batman5 Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 Let's see, disproving a negative. Nope, the author of A Man Named Beartice can't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 What do you mean by "created"? Why do you assume the universe was created? On what basis? Using what observations? By what method of reasoning do you arrive at this conclusion? The prevalent scientific theory concerning the origins of the universe is the Big Bang theory. I assume for convenience that you are familiar with it principles. If this theory is correct than how would you logically address your theory of a static Universe? How would you contend with the fact that for every action you have an equal and opposite reaction? That every action or event must be preceded by an action or event which caused it? This line of reasoning logically concludes that there must be a root action which started all others. On a related note: I am an atheist. I am not supporting some sort of mystical or supernatural being or cause of life. I am interested to see how you would support your claims of a static universe without violating the principles above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 That every action or event must be preceded by an action or event which caused it? This line of reasoning logically concludes that there must be a root action which started all others. What action preceded the root action? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 What action preceded the root action? I don't know. Your intention, I think, by positing that question was to try and show a logical hole in that theory. I agree, I cannot fathom how or what started the first action to start all others. What your question doesn't do is help me arrive at a suitable answer. The concept of a static universe has even more holes than the one I proposed. The Big Bang has at least some evidence behind it, while the concept of an everlasting universe does not. Other theories escape into abstract mathematical nonsense and don't have any basis in reality. I'm just looking for an answer or at the very least some reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 I'm just looking for an answer or at the very least some reasoning.Reasoning works best when it's applied to something in reality. The problem with these question about first events and root causes is that they can't be addressed empirically. It's perfectly fair to be puzzled about any "first event", but you're never going to get to the zillionth of a nanosecond before the big bang. The simple answer is, "the nature of reality changed". You may find that answer unsatisfying, but suppose I make up something like "The Glazornka constant changed its value, resulting in a distinction between stuff and non-stuff" -- that shouldn't satisfy you either, because it can't be scientifically proven. I don't see that concern with this particular question is productive. If you want entertainment, I recommend Poul Anderson's Tau Zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 Your intention, I think, by positing that question was to try and show a logical hole in that theory. ..(snip).... What your question doesn't do is help me arrive at a suitable answer. True, and fair enough. However, I think whatever the answer is, it won't simply be a matter of the one that has the least logical holes in it, it will be the one with no logical holes in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.