Avila

I think Ayn Rand was not able to see that orthodix Christian philosophy entails paradox -- she saw the paradoxes of Christianity as mere contradictions, which they are not.

Necessity presupposes existence, but that does not address the question of whether any existent is, in fact, necessary. Take yourself, for example: you exist now, but are finite, limited, and changing. You can certainly not exist -- it is 100% for sure that someday you will not. You are not "necessary", in the philosophical sense (if you were, you wouldn't die, and since everything would depend upon you as necessary, you would need to be infinite and have always existed). Yes, I do assume that the universe had a beginning, as the Big Bang model suggests. It also seems logical: If the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed—one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before—in order for the present day to arrive. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point—for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point—or any point before it. So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite. In other words, the universe began to exist. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

I understand what you're saying, and agree that there could be a tendency to anthropomorphize observed complexity. But it isn't simply the complexity: it's the interconnected-ness of the whole. Science shows that our world is not merely an aggregate of many separate, unrelated laws, but rather a tightly interlocking whole, where relationship to the whole structures and determines the parts. No component part or active element can be self—sufficient or self—explanatory. For any part presupposes all the other parts—the whole system already in place—to match its own relational properties. It can't act unless the others are there to interact reciprocally with it. Any one part could be self—sufficient only if it were the cause of the whole rest of the system—which is impossible, since no part can act except in collaboration with the others. That is complexity, yes, but much more.

I disagree -- the universe is not necessary; that is, it could also not have come into existence. It doesn't have to be.

Ok, I understand -- it's not meant to be an explanation. But it does not -- or ought not -- preclude enquiries in search of an explanation. It is not an answer, then, to any argument made for the existence or non-existence of God.

Sorry, I don't think I was being clear enough when I used the terms "vague" and "non-conscious" in trying to explain my difficulties with the concept of "existence exists" being a satisfactory explanation for the existence of the universe. Let me try to explain my difficulties, and please understand that I am not trying to be inflammatory. "Existence" is simply the state or condition of being, and it is self-evident that existents (entities that exist) exist. But knowing that, and asserting that (which I have no problem with) does not explain WHY or HOW these existents came into being. But there is something in the use of the phrase "existence exists" as used by Objectivists that suggests a metaphysical, causal, and final sort of explanation - as if saying "everything that is, is, and that's all folks" explains it all. That's why I used the terms "vague" and "non-conscious": sometimes the use here of the term "existence" implies an entity (because entities exist -- therefore, "existence" itself seems to be some kind of entity, which strikes me as a rather vague and troublesome concept), but one with no consciousness and no volition. The problem I have is with this concept (that "existence exists" explains anything) is the observable physical "laws" we all can see: This world presents as a very ordered system of many active component elements. It does not appear to be simply a hodge-podge of random accidents (and please know that I do not deny evolution). The natural properties of elements are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships (physical "laws"). For example, every hydrogen atom combines with every oxygen atom in the proportion of 2:1 (which implies that every oxygen atom is reciprocally ordered to combine with every hydrogen atom in the proportion of 1:2). So it is with the chemical valences of all the basic elements. And all particles with mass are ordered to move toward every other according to the fixed proportions of the law of gravity. This strikes me as an interconnected, interlocking, dynamic system, in which the active nature of each component is, (or at least could rationally be said to be), defined by its relation with others, and so presupposes the others for its own intelligibility and ability to act. This is why I find the concept "existence exists" as an explanation for anything so unsatisfactory. It strikes me as a dead-end concept: there appears to be no "valid" avenue to explore the very intriguing questions of just why things are the way they are, and why they exist at all. Or, at the very least, the "accepted" avenues don't include the concept of a volitional uncaused cause (God). This is held to be irrational, and is sneered at.

Essentially, the Objectivist simply replaces the concept "God" with the concept of "existence". (In other words, simply removing the word "supreme" from Supreme Being, and being left with "being" on its own). Which is why, as Dante says, the Objectivist simply stops there, as his eternal existent is existence. To go beyond and ask how non-conscious, vague, "existence" gives rise to the complexity of our material universe with its physical laws is "out-of-bounds" for Objectivists. So I can see how, for Objectivists, certain questions are invalid. That does not mean they are invalid questions for other philosophies, and indeed they have been valid questions for philosophers for millennia. What I am reacting to is the idea, advanced here implicitly and in other threads explicitly, that any and all belief in God as the Uncaused Cause, or Unmoved Mover, etc., represents complete irrationality, as if modern science has completely made the concept of "God" irrelevant. My point is that the atheist worldview, and the Judeo-Christian worldview, are differing philosophical interpretations of what we observe in our world. Obviously they can't both be right: one of those worldviews is in error. But science is not going to provide the definitive answer, as it is not equipped to answer what is essentially a philosophical question.

Apology accepted. Thanks for having the decency to apologize.

It's not an odd word choice at all, as I am using the term as it is generally understood in philosophy (an attribute that is not essential to the essence of a thing). But you're right, this probably is just getting off on a tangent...

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you're correct in that the Judeo-Christian concept of God as the Uncaused Being means that God is eternal and uncaused. In the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist. But without an uncaused final cause, nothing could begin to exist, and so nothing could exist right now. As I mentioned before, the atheist and the Judeo-Christian worldviews are differing philosophical interpretations of our observations of the material universe. By the way, the example you gave of a quantum mechanics researcher who posits that the universe as we know it popped out of a quantum fluctuation -- would you agree that the term "universe" has been misused in this case? I always took "universe" to mean, "all that there is". Thank you for being polite and not resorting to sneers.

We agree here. However, you haven't explained why these questions are invalid. They are philosophical questions, to be sure, but I don't see what makes them "invalid". There's something in that use of the term that is disquieting, a kind of self-censorship (as if certain questions and thought patterns MUST NOT be allowed). Yes, of course -- the physical processes we observe.

Now there's a solid refutation of my position. Bravo!

Why? These are legitimate philosophical questions (and in the case of the origins of the universe, one that science looks at as well). The position that the eternal existent is a consciousness is not arbitrary, but is instead based on the awareness of purpose and design in the world. Now, the atheist looks at the world and interprets it with a differing philosophical worldview -- but it is not arbitrary. Nor is the position that the eternal existent is supernatural "meaningless" -- if the eternal existent created the material universe (nature) then of course it is "super" -- meaning, "above" -- nature.

Well, using the metaphysical principles worked out by Aristotle and perfected by Aquinas (the four causes that are involved in the production and motion of all material things), a comprehensible definition could be "uncaused cause"; "unmoved mover"; etc. How do you support this assertion? No, it's not an "invalid" question. It is one that has intrigued scientists for centuries. "Existence exists" is a fairly meaningless statement. It's true, of course, but not much can be derived from it. "Only existence exists" means what, exactly? Do you mean that only things that actually exist, exist? If that's what you mean, that's a big "duh", right? It's not that profound.... Or do you mean that only things that can be physically measured actually exist? If that's the case, does the mind exist? I think it's important to point out, on this thread, that atheism and theism (or at least Judaism and Christianity) represent two differing philosophical interpretations of the results of science. The existence of God is a question of philosophy, not of science.

I didn't erase anything, to my knowledge, so I don't know what you're saying and I have no reason to trust your views.

If logical progression is insufficient in arriving at truth, then what do you think constitutes a sufficient means?

I don't know much about near-death experiences, never looking into the subject. But I did have an interesting discussion with a gal I know this spring: when I saw her one day, she looked distressed (not usual for her) and was visibly sweating. I asked her if she were feeling ill, and she told me no, but that there would soon be a "great flood and many souls would be separated from their bodies". That was a bit off-the-wall, but I said that no doubt she must be worrying about the flood levels on the Mississippi (our little town is on the Mississippi, and there was a lot of discussion about worse-than-usual flooding this spring). She said no, that it wouldn't be here (and in fact the flooding here was less than expected) but would be far away in Japan, and it would be huge. The next week, the tsunami hit Japan. I don't know what to make of that. She's not given to this sort of thing -- she's a financial systems analyst -- and I always saw her as being perfectly level-headed.

Sorry, Sargeant, but that's a useless generalization, a substitute for thought. The Washington culture does present a corrupting influence that no doubt most politicians are susceptible to (and succumb to), and certainly there are a lot of unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind politicians, but it does not necessarily follow that "every politician in Washington" is like that. You have to study these matters -- and people -- with a discerning eye. Yes, it's much harder to do that. It's so-o-o much easier to just skip the homework of studying individuals by dissing them wholesale as a group. Unless you are familiar with the positions and voting histories of all the politicians in Washington, you're in no logical position to make your assessement.

NOT a selling point for me!!! But I do understand what you're saying, even if your example is a bit, umm, scary.

Hah! Well, I can use all the inspiration you want to send my way... Sounds like a good exchange. I have never bought (even when I was an atheist) the idea that if one believed there was no life after death, that that somehow made meaningful actions meaningless. Hell, then why not just sit in a corner and die sooner than later? I wonder how much of that is really a mask for the unwillingness to exert oneself to meaningful, purposeful action.

I disagree whole-heartedly: this gets us into the realm of universals, which might be one of Rand's weakest points. I can certainly conceive of the color "red", without its being attached to any entity. Granted, this will have been the result of the cumulative perceiving of what "red" means, that is, as an accident attached to a subject. What is particularly interesting is how the mind will "group" these accidents together, so that a warm red, and a cool red, will still be seen as belonging to the family of "red".

' Chuff was simply being snide, a snarky habit of his (and sometimes of mine). But I would hardly call him an "enemy" -- I don't know a thing about him. Nor has he harmed me in any way -- so just what are you talking about?

The original poster was the one making the mistake, not once, but consistently throughout his post. That's why I asked what the heck "onthology" was, as it did not seem to be a typo. (But no, I didn't think that "ornithology" was what he intended!) It was Chuff, a few posts later, that made a sneering comment. That's who I was responding to, no the original poster. Chuff has a tendency to be snide (or so I have experienced in the past) which is why I said that it was what I had come to expect.

I didn't. That's why I used the quote of the person who was rude in my post.