Devil's Advocate

Replace the word "passionate" with "reverence", and I think that sounds about right... “In every true searcher of Nature there is a kind of religious reverence, for he finds it impossible to imagine that he is the first to have thought out the exceedingly delicate threads that connect his perceptions” ~ Albert Einstein

Essentially, that's all I'm saying. Statistically, most individuals cannot accept a position of non-belief because the universe of possibilities is simply too large to dismiss on the basis of one illogical definition.

Ah, OK... The objective standard would be the appearance of flourishing, and the subjective standard would be positive self-esteem. I'm not saying that, "coming up with God", is wise, per se; or that non-belief is wise, per se. The proof of the pudding would be apparent well being of the individual as a result of the choices they make. Sapient beings apparently assign meaning to what comes before life and after death, and most (statistically) attempt to adjust their lives accordingly.

Individually, the experience is specific and self-evident. Whatever solution to the question of what's beyond one's awareness or imagination will only satisfy one's curiosity if it continues to agree with one's self-evident experience. Are you suggesting that sapience is only validated when in agreement with conventional wisdom?

Whether or not there's a benefit to faith or non-belief is dependent on the individual; I'm making no claim either way on that score. I'm simply suggesting that the claim that all religion/faith/deism is the result of salesmanship avoids accounting for the persistence of such belief in spite of advances in science, or increases in efforts to prohibit such belief. The statistical evidence suggests to me that the ratio of faith vs non-belief has likely been about the same since prehistory, with variations in the particulars of how that belief is expressed or suppressed. For clarity, I'm not questioning Objectivism's claim regarding the Law of Identity and God. I'm questioning the efficacy of relying on a logical rebuttal to a particular definition of God, e.g. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, as the final solution to promote reason over faith. I believe more progress can be made by understanding that the roots of faith go beyond a particular definition of God and mere promotion of that concept.

1) A personal experience; some catalyst of significance to the individual. I cannot be more specific than that, because the experience is subjective to the individual involved. 2) Determining whether or not there is something more significant to our life than birth, reproduction and death, given our awareness of a universe beyond the scope of our imagination. Again, I cannot be more specific than to say one's experience is applied to resolve this question. Statistics indicate some people don't care; a majority of others do.

A personal experience; some catalyst of significance to the individual. Determining whether or not there is something more significant to our life than birth, reproduction and death, given our awareness of a universe beyond the scope of our imagination.

I was responding to the original post, "Does the Law of Identity contradict the existence of God?" It does, but a God without identity seems no less credible to roughly 80% of the global population. Anyway, carry on...

Definition for sapience: Web definitions: wisdom: ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn I'm suggesting that the concept of God, even without identity, is likely a product of being sapient.

Only in that they all represent the result of an application of wisdom, i.e. they are all a measure of sapience.

Unless you're asserting that all humans aren't sapient, we're both presuming that even those who claim atheism are sapient, yes? However an atheistic vote for "none of the above" implies that a choice has been considered and made, and that application of wisdom validates sapience; not the resulting expression of faith or non-belief. You might as well argue that the ability to apply common sense isn't an aspect of sapience because not all sapient individuals apply common sense.

I don't think so... Whether one is seeking "a form of artistic benefit", or consulting "witch doctors", the primary motivation is most likely the result of responding to the question, "Is there something greater to aspire to?". Non-belief typically responds, "Things are what they are", which appears unsatisfactory, or incomplete to a majority of individuals.

I'm saying that faith in something (God for lack of a better description) is an apparent attribute of sapience. Statistical evidence shows that non-belief remains somewhere between 10-25%* ** of the world's population despite advances in science, efforts by various governments efforts to abolish the practice of religion, and Objectivism's consistently logical rebuttal of the definition of God. Taking into account the fear of pesecution for being identified as either believing or non-belief, a substantial majority of individuals persist in believing in something greater than Man, be it God, Nature's God, an afterlife, souls, spirituality, or whatever. I would even argue that "Man as a heroic being" meets some approximation of a God within Man, given the greek definition of hero, i.e. of divine origin, and the actual nature of Man, which on the whole is certainly less than heroic. This suggests to me that the concept of something like God is a necessary aspect of sapience, as a response to a common need to identify something greater than ourselves. * "The world population of non religious** ranges anywhere from 850 million to 1.1 billion making up 15 to 26.8%" ~ http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.php (presented as a sample of stastical evidence) ** "Between 500,000,000 and 750,000,000 humans currently do not believe in God." ~ http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf (presented as a sample of stastical evidence) Current world population equals 7,026,625,467 ~ http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

I agree.

The need to know. To accomplish the purpose of being sapient.

Reality has a definite and knowable nature; God doesn't. But what is curious, more so than God's lack of identity, is the persistence of faith in a concept of God held by a majority of individuals who ought to know better by now. The fact that faith in God remains long after Santa, et al, have been vanquished suggests to me that God is less the result of mysticism, than a need shared by most individuals to believe in something rather than nothing.

Solipsism is essentially an argument for lucid dreaming. Pour a glass of water over his head, and if he asks why say, "You are trying to wake yourself up."

"Once spun up, objects in the vacuum of space—stars, black holes, planets, moons, spin-stabilized satellites, etc.—continue spinning almost indefinitely with no further energy input." ~ perpetual motion machines of the first kind and second kind "Almost indefinitely" but not perpetually... still, pretty darn close. Given our current level of knowledge, an eternally (if not perpetually) active universe seems preferable to me, to one that's eventually so strung out that everything grinds to a halt. "... it just goes to show that it's reality first, not mathematical models first." ~ Thomas M. Miovas Jr. I like that; trust but verify. Thanks again for some terrific information. I'm kinda like that annoying kid who keeps asking why, so I'll give it a rest for now.

So your objection to applying a "delimited concept" (perpetual motion) to the universe as a whole, is that the universe (by definition) isn't inputing or outputing energy, unless I'm totally missing it... ...but is the definition of 'perpetual motion' delimited to open-ended systems, as opposed to self-sustaining systems? When I Google "definition perpetual motion" I get: per·pet·u·al mo·tion Noun: A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing. The motion of a hypothetical machine that, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear. Given there is no force external to the universe, how does an eternally active universe not meet the definition? If I'm wearing your patience, I'll let it go. I just can't seem to grasp the Objectivist view on this.

Existence appears to be sustained in motion, but science dismisses perpetual motion ~ re-posted I wanted to be sure I understood your comment... Are you saying the universe cannot be viewed as a closed system (mechanism) of perpetual motion because it would require the input of new energy, or that the universe is slowing down and there's no evidence where the energy is being transferred? What's confusing to me is the reference in your 1st sentence, "that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy", which appears to me at odds with the definition of 'perpetual motion' as, "the motion of an ideal mechanism that could continue to operate indefinitely without drawing upon an external source of energy" ~ Merriam-Webster Perhaps I'm just missing something more obvious in your last comment??

I'll have to reflect on this information a bit more, but I really appreciate what's been offered so far. I've gone back to the beginning twice to try to understand these ideas. For my own clarity, I gather that Objectivism considers causality to be the behavior of being, and that a first (or primary) cause isn't valid because there could never have been a moment of being where no behavior existed... ... at least that's what I think is being expressed here. Thanks for your efforts to enlighten me.

Thank you all for responding. I'm trying to draw off your comments as a group to ask the following: So motion is a property of matter, i.e. a ball rolls because its nature is to roll, is this correct? Is a ball at rest an illusion then, or is its apparent inactivity non-existent in a universe where "we know everything is always acting and interacting in one way or another"? Does an expanding universe imply that matter (or something) is contracting inversely?

I think the "existence" of a creator presumes the primacy of existence, but an ever expanding universe in motion suggests a kind of perpetual or eternal motion, which I believe science disputes. If there's no evidence of everything coming to movement from a state of rest, doesn't that imply perpetual motion? I think that's the area I'm having the most trouble with... existence appears to be sustained in motion, but science dismisses perpetual motion. Is there another rational option??

Does the primacy of existence then imply that the natural state of existence is inert? It's my understanding that motion isn't a property of matter... is this correct??

As someone who's interested in Objectivism, I'm having trouble understanding the logic of causality in an eternal universe. In the thread of another forum, I was given the following response to my questioning whether the objects of existence could be intentional creations, i.e. caused by a creator, as opposed to resulting from some distant unknown, but presumed to be non-creative source of causality: "The correct position is that something always was and that everything that exists was caused by something that existed previously." ~ Betsy Speicher, Administrator for THE FORUM for Ayn Rand fans (from thread title: "Proving a negative", pg 2) I was eventually ejected from that forum for "causing" a heated exchange with the Objectivists there, by continuing to ask for the apparent need for a first cause within causal existence, and whether that cause was necessarily an unconscious action. What I'm looking for here is, according to the Objectivist position stated by Betsy Speicher (and rigorously defended by other members of her forum), doesn't this avoid accounting for, what appears to be, a necessary first cause for causality to occur? If not, can someone provide a concise reason why causality dosesn't imply a first cause??