Neverone

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 travesty and a hideous miscarriage of justice" and most particularly "If she's incapable of providing support, well, the most merciful thing would probably be what the ancients used to do and some incredibly poor people still do; exposure." No one seems to have challenged these statements in any way, other than those, like myself, who differ from the general Objectivist thinking. I realize that I have not included all context with these quotes, but Ms. Snow seems to be quite stalwart in not basing her stances on particular contexts. <br> If I am right, and these are consistent with the general understanding of Objectivist philosophy, then consensus Objectivism is a monstrosity, and hardline Objectivists are monsters. I'm going to go force my opinion on someone.

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 influence is subtle. I do not see how you can argue that structure does not exist. Even if you wish to define structure only as functional structure, such as that found in a bicycle, structure exists. Functional structure, from an Objectivist perspective, would be any structure that is of benefit to man. A structure that can be assumed to be created by an intelligence is a structure that, if one were to take all the raw materials of and place them together, would not arise spontaneously. A bicycle will never assemble itself, even if the individual components (i.e. wheels, tires, handlebars, etc.) are pre-made and put in a pile, much less if you simply have chunks of metal, rubber, and plastic. The hand is vastly more complex than a bicycle, and in fact has a functional structure far more useful to us than a bicycle, but athiests claim that it arose spontaneously. Why must all universes have the same logic? Not to mention the fact that I never posited a non-physical universe. In fact, I said the opposite, that god exists without dimension. God does not require a medium. As far as I know, this universe is the only one there is. Thus the proof of god is in the necessity of god. I am proposing that reality as we know it could not exist without the intervention

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 most accurate, other than what was found in my definition. If a person's fingerprints or DNA is found at a crime scene, is this not evidence? Just because no one witnessed his crime, does that mean that his role in the crime cannot be proven? Why do you insist that there is no evidence? I have presented evidence. The best explanations yet made for observable physical phenomena, such as the existence of the universe, cannot be true without outside intervention. What is an intervening, outside, large-scale universe-affecting consciousness but God? You keep saying that I have no evidence. I do, and have stated it. Please try addressing my points rather than simply discounting it. If your position is that we cannot draw conclusions from logical necessity, just say so, and this therefore ridiculous conversation will end.

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 their voice audible to the fetus, also has a soothing effect, one that could only be carried over from the womb. How is a newborn different? A newborn cannot see, speak, or make agreements. They have very little voluntary muscle control. They are utterly helpless. While it is true that the child is now a seperate human, does that not mean, by Objectivist principles, that, having no ability to enter agreements nor to rationally consider any point or circumstance, it has no rights? Even if a mother has no right to kill the infant, has she the right to abandon it in any circumstance she chooses, even if that circumstance would almost certainly result in death? Isn't it also true that, given the fact that we did not have any role in choosing to create that child, that we as a society can have no legal requirement to care for that child in the mother's stead? An infant cannot reason and is utterly dependent. How, other than being outside its mother's body, is it any different from a fetus?

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, in other words, effects of her existence. The universe is God's Atlas Shrugged. Its existence necessitates its author.

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 universe itself. If the big bang is the cause of the universe, what caused the big bang? In order for the universe to be created, there must be something other than the universe, that, unlike the universe, is without cause. Nothing in the universe has an infinite series of causes. At this point, most things have an incalculably long series of causes, but these causes all have an origin: the big bang. The big bang is an end to causation, the first physical event. The example of the watchmaker, a being within the physical plane creating an object also within the physical plane is only meant to show that functional structure implies a designer. The universe has a functional structure, so it implies that someone or something designed it.

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 a tool of God, not God itself.

It is an honest argument.

I don't see how that matters, in terms of addressing the argument.

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 are then denigrated as being part of the "culture of death." I believe, however, that other, more logical arguments can be made against abortion. Whether or not a fetus has a soul, it is a given that, barring some sort of mishap, that fetus will, before very long, become a human. While this is plainly an impossibility, let us say that I made an enemy who had a time travelling machine. While this was clearly a bad choice on my part, let us say that this enemy travelled back in time, to a period after my conception but before my birth, and terminated that pregnancy. Is that murder? The fact is, despite the hardship that pregnancy and birth can cause a woman, she is in no way forced to care for the resulting child thereafter. We have ways in our society in which women may give up custody of their children, and thereafter have no responsibility for their well-being. A woman can recover from an unwanted pregnancy that is carried to term, but the child, who was never born, never will. The momentary misfortune of an unwanted pregnancy is, in fact, no excuse for not succeeding in life. Such a circumstance has a limited duration, and a person of creativity and strength of will should be able to succeed despite such temporary setbacks, if one wishes to view it that way. I have also seen it stated that the fetus is a part of a woman's body until it is born, a statement that is completely false. Rather, the fetus is an obligate endoparasite, like an adult tapeworm. One can hardly argue that a tapeworm is a part of its host's body! A fetus is as much a human as any human, in that all humans pass through that stage. A human, Homo sapiens, does not change species once born, any more than a caterpillar changes species when becoming a butterfly. It looks different, yes, but so do our largely hairless, fatty infants. A fetus begins to resemble a human by its seventh week. What is it that defines us as human but our genes. A severely retarded person may not have any greater consciousness that a housecat. Does that justify our killing him if it would be helpful to those of greater consciousness? If the level of consiousness does not define a human, what does? Is it anatomy? Is a person who loses an eye, limb, or section of intestine less human? I think not. Therefore, what is left is genetics, and a fetus is genetically human. The idea that a fetus suddenly becomes human at birth is as specious and miraculous an argument as the idea that a soul is granted at the moment of conception. Humanity is very, very difficult to define. Should we not, therefore, err on the side of caution, and avoid what may well be murder?

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 the weak perish, all circumstances being equal. God is private, in that it does not cause physical phenomenon that make its existence clear to our physical senses. God does not exist outside of reality, as to do so would make It unreal. Rather, god exists outside of the physical universe, though it is certainly possible that god also exists within physical reality as well. Given that Objectivism is, by and large, true, other than its stance on athiesm, it can be said that God is an Objectivist! God set up an existence for us, the only other known consciousnesses extant, in which Objectivism is the superior philosophy. Evidence: Structure exists in the universe. Structure implies a conscious source. One can assume with great surety that if one finds a watch, there must be a watchmaker. That watch did not come into existence by a series of random events. Seeing as structure preexists man, and, presumably, preexists life, one can therefore assume that a consciousness also preexisted man and life. One interesting example, though not a proof of consciousness per se, is in the big bang itself. The predominant theory is that the universe expanded as an explosion of energy from a singularity. Given this, one may ask oneself how, then, did the universe differentiate into discrete structures? A singularity, necessarily, can have no internal spacial differences, being without dimension. Therefore, something else must have existed other than the big bang in order to produce the spatial irregularities. As the big bang created the physical universe, this other must have existed outside of the physical universe. There are energies and objects that exist that we can only infer the existence of from their effects on the environment around them, rather than perceiving them directly. Nonetheless, the existence of such things as quarks and black holes is not doubted by the larger portion of the scientific community. So it is with god. Despite the fact that one cannot perceive it directly at any particular time, one can infer its existence from its effects. As for the argument that god cannot exist because we cannot percieve it, I would point out that until relatively recently, we could not perceive individual cells, either. As has been pointed out, however, reality exists even without our awareness of it.