Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Veritas

Regulars
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Veritas last won the day on June 2 2019

Veritas had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Veritas

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

1738 profile views
  1. I ousted this over on Harry Binswanger’s board to get a critique of this response that I have written to my friend. Was curious what Objectivists here think about this response. Below, I will summarize what Mr. Binswanger said in reply. To see his actual post you will have to sign up at his website, which I highly recommend. A conflict of rights? I wrote this as a response to a friend. I am wanting to know if my response is coherent or flawed. One man is paying taxes that go towards welfare. Immigrants are coming over, which allows certain policies to drive up the cos
  2. I don’t see how it could follow “if P(g) or not P(g)n then P(u) or not P(u)”. I am arguing that in order for God to “create” U then (u) must be a part of God in some manner, but since (u) is not a part of God in any manner then U could not be from God, it must be necessity be eternal. It is a fact that in in order for there to be existence it must have identity. Existence has identity and that identity is the universe. The universe is what has always exists The form might have changed over time but not its existence.
  3. I am confused now as to where what I was showing could be reduced to showing that God was not made of matter? I suppose after considering this further what I have concluded is that this type of response that I have made above is not necessary. My goal was to show that the implications of “something can’t come from nothing” is that God could not have created the physical universe because in order to do that God would not be able to be any part of what the universe is. Since God by definition is something or that all that the universe is then it is a contradiction to say that he created it.
  4. Well, I am trying to to show the absurdity of the claim, "God created the universe". Really, I am trying to show that nothing created the universe, that it has always been by necessity. I guess the error is trying to show that by adding a necessary component (the concept of God) to refute it doesn't make much sense? Is that what you are getting at?
  5. I am contrasting the universe from God because they cannot be the same from a classical definition. God is what "created" everything so by definition cannot have in his own "nature" what isn't created yet. He is "Spirit" (whatever that means) and what he created is the material universe by definition. The material universe is the "something". I am not sure why you say that the universe being a collective noun means that it is not a collective noun referring to a matter. Ideas, words, etc are emergent properties of matter. Matter is a primary.
  6. I would definitely agree with that concerning an "Objectivist" approach and I can appreciate the veracity of "the burden of proof principle". Someone asked me to take a "rationalistic" approach to the argument so I did this intentionally. Just was wanting to see if it works under scrutiny. :-)
  7. Can anyone here tell me if my formulation follows? I think it is air tight, but I want an outsiders perspective. God did not create the universe Here are two difference and separate classifications of which by definition do not overlap or entail any attribute of the other. God = ( -P) Universe = (P) That the universe exist is self evident. Any part of the universe or all of the universe can both be referred to as “something”. Let’s let “something” = S, which is equal to P since the universe is self evidently something. Both P and S are logically the sa
  8. Ok, so in terms of understanding you I need to retain that you point is the “reasoning” from A to B is the issue. Wouldn’t the correlating reason over and above x,y,z be understood in the meaning behind the words used, such as, life, standard, etc,. There is a lot of reading that digs deeper. Greg Salmieri has some entries in “Blackwells Companions to Philosophy”. I hope you continue in this route to further refine your inquiries. Although, I also understand that people here who endorse her philosophy gives quick access to a response. I would like to be able to fill that role as well as n
  9. I think I see your reasoning here. Here are some statements that could be made. 1. A strong nuclear force is a fundamental for binding together matter. 2. Matter is required for life to exist. 3. Matter is a necessary condition to life You are concluding then that in this sense that matter could be a standard for value equal to a strong nuclear force equal to life and that if life could be said to be the standard then any of the above mentioned (matter or strong nuclear force) could be said to the the standard as well. From this you might also ask why not just say “exist
  10. Eric, I suppose I do not understand that objection per se. What would be the “host of additional necessary conditions of valuing”? Life is the fundamental condition. Conceptually, in order to understand any condition we must understand that life is the basis and perquisite for any other condition to exist. What can exist without life? Life (fundamentally speaking) is what gives rise to the need for values at all. What would be something equal to or greater conceptually than the concept of life that one could derive the concept of value from?
  11. Oh sorry, this original quote was from a Facebook conversation that I started having with someone that is a bit critical of Ayn Rand view of ethics. I asked him to come over here to make the conversation easier and flow better.
  12. I definitely agree with this. My life shouldn’t be taken as “my life” in a subjective way as if it something other than “the life” that I am living. I see how in talking with people that this gets taken incorrectly.
  13. The choice to remain alive as a child is not based on anything more than mere desire. How to stay alive is where "rationality" comes in. "Rationality" is what we use to make sure that our actions are in accordance with "Reality" for flourishing. Children do not deliberate or make arguments for life. They desire to live because of values that they in-explicitly choose. Also we might be using the term "Standard" differently here. It is not life qua life that is the standard (although, I think we agree with this). Does it follow that the act of deliberating means that "(my)life" can
  14. A few questions to clarify, In your first paragraph you mention a wold were memory recall is only meant for survival. This is to some degree the world we live in for most species who act instinctually or simply by memory (sensory and or perceptual level). But, then you speak of “us” who are able to operate on a conceptual level. Axioms are not just categories that we have evolved to think of for survival. Axioms fundmental to existence whether we think of them or not. Can you clarify a world world that is “Empty” and where there is no consciousness? I can imagine a world with no co
  15. Ok, I thought it would be easier to continue the conversation in here and it will be easy to keep track of. Right, it is by being alive that I have a reason to choose to continue to maintain being alive or not. I am not sure I am following your connection that if we have a choice “and it is reason based” that the choice cannot be based on life being the standard. It is not life in general it is ‘my” life. What makes possible the ability to make a choice at all is that there is existence. So as it is, because existence is real and I am something that exists in a particular way
×
×
  • Create New...