Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Neverone

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Copyright
  1. Moderator's note: Reader discretion advised: The subject of this thread is controversial. No particular poster's comments should be assumed to represent "the Objectivist position". It has occured to me that, if the statements some of you have made, particularly Ms. Snow, are representative of your beliefs, that I am indeed not an Objectivist nor even close to one. Examples such as "children have no more right to support than adults do" and "Does this mean that people can choose to neglect their children for perfectly irrational reasons? Yes." and "child support legislation is a
  2. What I meant by saying that god is bound by time, perhaps a bad use of language on my part, is that god must be capable of change, or it could not respond to change or have any awareness whatsoever. Therefore, as time is a measure of change, god must exist in time. God can interact with the physical universe, it is just not required to do so as are you and I. God has set up laws of physics that allow the universe to run on its own most of the time. God merely provides tweaks, such as differentiating the expanding primordial universe and structuring life along certain pathways, but this i
  3. I was not honestly questioning the existence of Ayn Rand, but pointing out that one may infer that something existed based on the evidence of their existence, without being able to actually see that something. As for the THEORY label, you are quite correct. These things are theories. But a scientific theory is a model of reality based on a preponderance of evidence, not merely a guess. A guess is a hypothesis in science. Also, please do note that I am not espousing any particular religion here, merely the existence of God. There is no claim of knowledge as to what version of god is mos
  4. Neverone


    All the previous anti-abortion posts seem to resort to the voluntary or involuntary nature of the sexual act as the criterion for whether abortion should or should not be allowed. I have tried very hard to avoid any arguments apart from those relating to the humanity of the fetus. It can be shown, for instance, that fetuses, from a rather early stage, can sense and react to pain. EKGs of fetuses have shown that a mother's voice, when heard inside the womb, muffled as it is, can be soothing to the fetus. Further, after birth the mother's voice, as well as any other that spent much time making t
  5. God is like a black hole. We cannot observe a black hole directly. As a singularity, there is no possible physical device, according to our current understanding of physics, that would allow us to observe it directly. In the sense that it is without dimension, it is like God. Nonetheless, scientists assert the existence of black holes based on their effects. Likewise, I assert the existence of God based on God's effects. God cannot be directly perceived, but God's influence can be. Where is your evidence for Ayn Rand? Can you point to her? No, she is dead. Only her writings and images remain,
  6. I say that god must exist outside of the physical plane because, as stated in my big bang point, in order to exert an influence on a universe being expanded from a singularity, and therefore necessarily uniform and symmetrical in all directions, one must be outside that universe. No separate physical beings could exist within the physical universe at that time, and all beings within the physical universe are physical beings. Therefore, god must be a non-physical being separate from the physical universe. All objects within the physical universe must have a cause, and this includes the unive
  7. Only objects within the physical universe are subject to causation. In a physical universe, each phenomenon necessarily implies an event that precipitated it. However, a being not bound by physics need not have a cause. Again, this really leads to an argument that god exists, at least in part, outside of the physical universe, as is already necessitated by its creating it. As for the case of a god, or really a representation or avatar of a god, manifesting in the physical universe, this would have to be created. Existing within the physical universe, it must be bound by causality, but it is
  8. I don't see how that matters, in terms of addressing the argument.
  9. Neverone


    In all the Objectivist arguments I have yet read (about three) I have seen the support for abortion rights based on the "fact" that if a woman has a baby, she will automatically be saddled with that offspring's economic and emotional support for the next eighteen years, and if this occurs at the wrong time of life, it can destroy her ever having a chance at true happiness. Individual happiness being the supreme goal in life, therefore that woman must have the right to abort. Often, the arguments of anti-abortionists are characterized as consisting of only theistic, soul-based arguments, and
  10. You will have to forgive me if my logical lexicon is a bit lacking. I am new here. In any case, I have a great sympathy for Objectivism, but I have difficulty with the atheism it requires. If I were to make an argument for God, it would be this: Definition: God(s) is the creator of physical space and the source of its energy. God(s) has a consciousness. God(s) is bound by time, but not by space. The nature of God(s) can be ascertained by the observation of nature, as what one creates always reflects its creator. Therefore, God prefers strength over weakness, because the strong prosper and t
  • Create New...