[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

that matter formed as energy coalesced and as soon as matter formed, gravity came into existence

Where did the energy come from? Did it cause itself to come into existence? In which case, is energy volitional?

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

"Existence" is not an entity. No one even said so.

Yes, Greebo did. Back on page four, I believe. The quote I have above from him -- "I am, indeed" -- was in answer to my asking if he was saying that existence was an entity.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

I am, indeed.

No, reality and the material universe are not synonymous. There are theories suggesting that we are only in one universe of many - and the physical rules of those other universes may be different from ours - but they are all part of existence (if they exist), and if there were some kind of God being, it would be part of existence as well.

Existence is all that exists, and only that which exists

I think part of the problem here is that Rand attached different meanings to philosophical terms. Are you using "existence" as it is commonly understood, or in the more specialized philosophical understanding of the term (the actuality of an essence)? You say that "existence" is an entity -- does it have volition?

I'm glad that you DON'T think that "reality" and "the material universe" are synonomous.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

Objectivism seeks to understand what makes a concept valid

Yes, as do other philosophies, though with differing epistemologies and thus differing conclusions.

What observed facts give rise to the necessity of the concept

Again, hardly a unique feature of Objectivism. In the case of Aquinas' five ways (which are really essentially one way -- the "cosmological argument"), the observed facts are causality, design, etc. His is an a posteriori demonstration. Obviously you disagree with his conclusions, but it is a rational process.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

But there really is no reason to expect that to be the default position when one looks at the totality of irrational beliefs people hold now and have held throughout history

If the belief in God or gods is as arbitrary as you suggest, then I would expect atheism to be the default position. In a way, you're simply repeating my point: people and cultures have consistently believed in God or gods. That is compelling -- at least to me -- as it suggests an innate desire (at least unconsciously) to believe in a transcendant being.

People don't want to die and no longer exist, they want to believe there is something better than here and they will go there instead of ceasing to exist.

Yes, the belief in God and some sort of heaven seems to be an innate desire. Innate desires correspond to real objects -- this was C.S. Lewis's assertion (an ex-atheist). This would also explain why advances in science do not necessarily do away with the belief in God (the originator of the Big Bang theory, for example, was a Catholic priest).

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

"New" is an irrelevant concept with respect to the idea's logical soundness. The argument need not be new to be sound.

Very true.

In another way, it merely states the person is simply not a theist. It is possible for someone to say "The is no reason or evidence for me to accept the concept or idea of a G(g)od" without saying, "there is no God."

I accept that.

That is not relevant to the argument. It rejects the idea of ANY arbitrarily asserted being.

I think it is relevant, at least to some degree: if the assertion of a God was, as suggested, just as arbitrary as a pizza-loving pink unicorn, I would expect that atheism would be sort of the default position for most individuals and most cultures throughout human history, but that's clearly not the case.

So, are you saying you "spouted" off an argument that you have never actually accepted as valid? Why would you do that?

I thought it was valid at the time, so no, I wasn't being intellectually dishonest. I simply hadn't questioned my atheism to any real degree. Hey, I was young and stupid....

Not sure if you have heard this one, but if you care to you can give it a try.

Thanks, I'll take a look.

But back to the original thread: I'm just trying to sort out some of the responses to Jacob, and what that tells me about the Objectivist view of existence (which I thought I understood, but some of the answers here make me question that).

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

If you want interesting answers you'll have to ask interesting questions.

Ummmm...what? Does this have anything at all to do with my comments on this thread?

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

And you haven’t presented a new, or even an interesting argument. Reap what you sow.

Wow -- I guess this subject is a sore spot with some Objectivists, so that a reasonable discussion without sneers is apparently impossible. "Reap what you sow"?? I have already said that I'm not here to convince anyone. I found this thread interesting, and made some comments, but I didn't expect to find such vitriol. For people who claim that the subject is as irrelevant as pizza-loving pink uinicorns, your passion seems.....odd.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

Stating that theism is irrational is not an assumption, it's a conclusion drawn by refusing to entertain any arbitrary claims as having some kind of epistemological value. Put bluntly, refusing to accept the idea of a divine being without real evidence is like refusing to accept the idea of an invisible pink unicorn that loves pizza.

Nothing new....the idea that the existence of God is an unnecessary hypothesis has been around for centuries. You haven't stumbled onto some new, conclusive proof. Nor does it prove that God does not exist, though you seem to think it does. No one invests invisible, pizza-loving unicorns with the attributes of the Judeo-Christian God. I've never found that particular argument very forceful, though certainly I spouted it often enough when I was an atheist. Aquinas's five ways begin with sense data and conclude that the entity known as "God" is a rational explanation of the data -- it's a rational process, though you disagree with his conclusions. I haven't found any refutations of his five ways convincing, at least so far.

There are other arguments for the existence of God besides Aquinas -- that they don't persuade you is fine with me. I don't assume all atheists are irrational because they think, for example, that an infinite regress of causes is logically possible, or that matter can create itself out of nothing.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

I certainly didn't mean to imply 100% of Christians use the bible as their only source of "evidence". Certainly one can look at all the different variations of Christian beliefs and see that as a group, their beliefs are all over the chart. I admit, the term "Christians" is a very loose label when thinking in terms of some unified belief system, but it is one most people can relate to.

Thank you, Rational Biker. I agree with you that the term "Christians" is a very loose label.

I'm not here to persuade Objectivists/atheists that their position is wrong. Beyond that being a violation of forum rules, I like Objectivism for many reasons (not the least because that I think Ayn Rand understood the visual arts, at least to some degree), and in my youth I considered myself an Objectivist. I'm not here to slam Objectivism.

I like thoughtful discussions of metaphysics, epistemology, aesthestics, ethics.....and in many cases, Catholicism and Objectivism share particular attributes. What I don't like is the assumption that any theism is irrational. Granted, I think there are forms of theism (polytheism, for example) which don't stand up to much logical scrutiny, but the hostility sometimes shown here to theism is, at times, quite irrational.

I've enjoyed reading this thread as well as others when I've been lurking here. Good food for thought...but I won't bother to answer any posts which assume that theism is synonomous with irrationality.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

In all your worship of Aquinas's "use" of logic and of non-contradiction

"Worship"??

What you tell me by this inflammatory use of the term is that no rational discussion with you is possible. Good day, sir.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

My point was that it isn't necessary for Objectivist epistemology to posit the origin of the universe in order to demonstrate what tools we have available to us to learn the reality around us.

That's reasonable.

Christians take the Bible as evidence of their God but that doesn't make it evidence

Some Christians do, but not all. I'm an ex-atheist, now Catholic, and Catholics don't take the Bible as the sole source of "evidence". Aquinas' "proofs", for example, do not rely upon the Bible (though he does quote from it).

if you find Aquinas' "proofs" to be quite rational, why use the quotes around the word proofs?

Because I don't think that's quite the word I'm looking for. For many people, the word "proof" means something seen or measured, but what Aquinas is arriving at his conclusions by use of reason. More like identifying gravity because of its effects, as opposed to literally seeing gravity.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

Hardly arbitrary... are you sure about that?

Consider his contingency proof - he's arbitrarily declaring that an eternal nature of existence is impossible - and declaring that it must have come from somewhere, and thus it must have come from a god being:

"Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity."

We could equally postulate that existence itself exists of its own necessity - so he's arbitrarily dropped that possibility.

I'm no philosopher (I'm an artist), but it seems to me that you are using the term "existence" in a way that makes it a thing, an entity. As I asked in an earlier post here, is it reasonable to say that "reality" and "the material universe" are somewhat synonomous? If so, then the material universe has not always existed, and therefore is contingent.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

What it does address is that from an epistemological point of view there is no point in entertaining arbitrary claims. Nothing can be learned about the existence or lack of existence of something UNLESS there is evidence presented to consider that claim. No evidence has been presented that a god or gods exist.

Objectivism does not need to posit what the ultimate creation was in order to point out the only epistemological tools you have available to you for trying to figure out what that ultimate creation was.

I think we agree that Objectivism is not equipped towards answering the whys and hows of the creation of the universe. That's not a criticism of Objectivism, merely an observation. But I disagree that "No evidence has been presented that a god or gods exist" -- I find Aquinas's "proofs" to be quite rational. A person might not agree with his conclusions, but they're hardly arbitrary.

[Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.]

The metaphysical basis of Objectivism, as I interpret it, is that reality is not subject to consciousness -- any consciousness.

This has been an interesting thread to read. It's made me think a great deal about assumptions I have made over the years. In reading Jacob's posts on this thread, I think that you're missing something here: yes, reality is not subject to human consciousness, but since human consciousness is all that Objectivism allows, it does not -- cannot -- address the fundamental creation of reality. Reality in and of itself - A is A - is addressed by Objectivism, but it does not address its ultimate creation. I just don't think Objectivism has the answer here. As a philosophy, it simply can't, as it has set finite limits to reality (observable reality) and doesn't have much to say about its origins. Saying "it's always been there" doesn't really satisfy.

f we tacitly accept this god hypothesis (for which there is no need, once we recognize that reality has always been and will always be), we must also accept that any semblance of stability or coherence in reality is because this god's consciousness hasn't altered it yet.

You start out OK here, for the first six words, but then you assert that there is no need for this hypothesis. It doesn't appear, then, as an honest attempt to engage the argument. I mean, you're already finding it necessary to blow the hypothesis away, not by argument, but by saying it's not necessary. Your arguments should be able to stand on their own, without a defensive "We'll tacitly accept...but we don't need to because...". I'm intrigued, for example, with the origin of observable reality: how do you know that it has always been and will always be? And is "reality" synonomous with "the material universe"? Would that be reasonable? My understanding is that, if so, the universe has NOT always existed, nor is it infinite. You say that reality has always existed, but if reality is synonomous with, or at least corresponds to, the material universe, then it hasn't always existed. If you disagree, then I'd like to know what you envision reality separate from the universe looks like. And isn't it just as possible that it need not have existed? If it does (and obviously it does), why? Again, I just don't think Objectivism is equipped to address these questions, as it addresses only observable reality and is not able to speculate beyond that to the origins of observable reality.

Causation doesn't "originate" from anywhere or from anyone

This just seems to defy all data from observable reality. Causation involves agents who cause. How could you even use the term "causation", if you're divorcing it from agents? I hope you'll explain yourself here.

[Art Student]

Have you known any art teachers who were exceptional in their approach to their job? Who were they, where did they work, what was their approach?

Richard Lack, who founded Atelier Lack in Minneapolis, was an exceptional teacher and artist. He brought the atelier system to the Midwest, and trained a number of painters, some of whom went on to found ateliers of their own. You can read more about Richard Lack here: http://www.classicalrealism.com/art/Masters/Richard_Lack/index.htm

[Art Student]

I don't intend to derail this thread entirely, but I do wonder what you have to say about things like drawings that aren't a rendering of real things and aren't a realistic style to any extent.

It does derail the thread, but I'll answer anyway: drawings that are simply idle doodlings, representing nothing in particular (except in the so-called "artist's" mind) may be fine therapy or some such thing, but is otherwise worthless crap. If anything, it's anti-art.

If your color sensitivity isn't great, there are other options

That's true. Many artists employ color conventions, and so do not need as much of a high degree of color sensitivity as others. And, of course, there's black-and-white and monochrome.

If some are less adept at depth perception, there are other options besides trying to draw in the same sort of realism as Michaelangelo, all without just merely being an inferior artist.

The ability to create the illusion of depth employs quite a number of artistic skills. If someone tries to achieve depth but is unable to, then yes, that is an inferior artist. That doesn't mean that the would-be artist might not make a good graphic designer, or do well with black-and-white or various print methods (woodblock, etc) where the illusion of depth is not of primary importance.

Whatever the artists themselves claim about inborn talent is kind of irrelevant, unless that comes with the reasoning behind that conclusion, otherwise, it's just a subjective sort of claim.

How so? If I want to understand something about building model airplanes, why wouldn't the assertions of actual, successful model airplane builders be of substantially more relevance than a wannabee who merely has theories about the subject? Why would any sane person ignore the collective expertise of those who excel in any field, if they wished to understand that field?

[Art Student]

What Art books have you found that helped expand your artistic ability?

"The Practice and Science of Drawing" by Harold Speed is very good. This is a book I assign my students. "Artistic Anatomy" by Dr. Paul Richer is an essential book to have if you are working with the human form.

To understand what has happened to the visual arts, "The Twilight of Painting" by R. H. Ives Gammell is a must. I assign chapters from this book as well to my students. If I had to choose one, and only one, book for both artists and non-artists to read, this would be it.

"Realism in Revolution", edited by Richard Lack, has practical information (though it's not a how-to) as well as a good overview of the current state of affairs in the visual arts. Again, I assign chapters from this book to my students.

[Art Student]

Accurate rendering isn't the point of drawing, though.

That's an entirely modern position. Prior to the late 1800s, the ability to render objects accurately was a sine qua non of anyone seriosly attempting to be an artist. Did this mean that there weren't artists who painted scenes from their imagination? Of course not -- Michelangelo, Bougereau, on and on -- they all painted scenes from their imagination, but they could first render objects accurately. It is an area that can be developed: one can develop one's ability to render objects correctly, which is why, traditionally, so much attention was spent on it. One cannot effectively render a scene from one's mind if one does not possess the ability to draw what he can see in front of him.

Compositional sense isn't really an intuitive thing at all, unless you are to suppose there is only kind of allowable composition.

Some basics can be taught, for sure, but if you look at the complex compositions of, say, Jean-Leon Jerome, you simply cannot reduce it down to a formula that anyone can duplicate. He was born with that talent (part of his overall artistic talent) and developed that talent to its fullest.

Of course, all those things need development (as you said), because there isn't an *inborn talent* to drawing/painting/sculpting/music-making ability

I disagree, and I am in good company. The great artists of the past recognized artistic talent as something they were born with, and they were the experts. I'd have to see your work and judge it equal to those artists before I can take your assertion seriously. I've been a painter for over 40 years: what are your qualifications?

Color sensitivity is not really an element of what people refer to when they say "inborn talent," usually it would refer to something like the entirety of a skill.

What do offer to support your assertion? For my part, I have seen varying degrees in color sensitivity in the artists I know, show with, and in the students I teach. It's most certainly an aspect of a person's overall artistic talent (I speak only of the visual arts, by the way). It was not possible to teach to those who did not possess it, at least beyond a certain basic level.

What you are referring to is more like inborn *capability,* by which I mean you are born with a certain perceptual capabilities

"capabilities", talent -- call it what you want.

However, there is value to be had in representing things in your own unique way, and that's why I think "anyone can be a great artist if they practice and study a lot" is true.

I never denied that there wasn't value in individual expression. However, after teaching many students, I can tell you that no, not everyone possesses the inborn ability to be an artist. If everyone is an artist, then no one is an artist. If everything is art, then nothing is art.

[Art Student]

I don't see a reason at all to suggest any artistic *talent* is something one is born with, though. What exactly are you referring to when you say talent, anyway? I mean, some people are born with greater sensitivity to color, for instance, and that's something that can't be taught

You contradict yourself here, as first you say that you don't see any reason for me to suggest that artistic talent is something one is born with, and then you go on to state that some people are born with a greater sensitivity to color (which is one area of overall artistic talent). The ability to accurately render the objects seen by the eye (drawing ability), compositional sense, and ability to convey emotional impressions -- these are, along with color sensitivity, aspects of artistic talent that one is born with -- or not. Of course these need development, otherwise the person will never be able to give those talents their full expression.

[Art Student]

I am not dismissing the role of artistic training -- far from it. One of the reasons the visual arts are in the sorry state they are in is the the dismantling of the teaching system and philosophies in the late 1800s. My point is that artistic talent is something one has to be born with, in order to have something to be developed.The idea that "everyone's an artist" and that people only need some instruction gauarantees mediocrity.

[Duty Calls]

I don't think cartoons qualify as "fine art". They are illustrations, that is to say, they illustrate a concept (political, humorous, etc.)This is not to say that some don't exhibit great expressiveness and/or technical skill(Hal Foster of "Prince Valiant" comes to mind), but they operate on a different, lower level than do the great artists of the past.

[Art Student]

Many of the non-artists I have known think that artistic skill is something a person is just born with. I like to challenge that notion. Anyone can be an artist if they understand what art is, learn what it takes to become an artist, and follow through on setting and achieving their goals. Art is a skill to be developed like any other skill.

I have to disagree with your assertion here. The great artists of the past, artists whom I admire, believed that their talent was a unique one that they were born with -- I can supply you with quotes if you would like. It is rational to consider seriously the opinion of those who excelled in their field. My own observation confirms their view.

It is true that anyone can improve their artistic ability, but if they lack the inborn talent, they can only go so far.

[Arguing with the irrational]

I'm with 2046: move on.

If you really don't want to do that, then you need to agree on some basic definitions: define exactly, for example, what is meant by "brainwashing" and "cult". Then ask for concrete, specific examples, not just assertions and generalizations.