dark_unicorn

The primary distinction that would arise between the "natural universe" and God is that nature, in itself, does not seem to tend towards order. Granted, this is dependent on my reference to the theory of Entropy, and this may not account for the whole natural universe. The distinction would be that the beginning of what is known as life (plant/animal/human) is dependent upon a certain set of circumstance that is not found everywhere in the universe. The distinction would be similar to that of a city that is obviously a work of man and contains all of the marvelous creations of the human spirit (architecture, art, music, commerce, et cetera) and the seemingly random nature of an untamed forest. Essentially, if there is no distinction between God and the natural universe, God would then only function as an elaborate anthropomorphism. Now, the "pure consciousness" senario is a bit of a mystery to me, because if God contemplates only himself, it would go against the idea of omniscience. Granted, that something is endowed with the ability to see all does not neccessitate that he would seek to always do so, since God is also seen as possessing a free will and being the first example of this particular attribute. I'm not really sold on Aristotle's idea of God, though it clearly accounts for the Deists of the Enlightenment, and far be it for me to criticize the views of a generation of philosophers who have given us so much. Ultimately, what we tend to visualize God as could and might well be an abstraction of our own ideals, but this does not mean that the entity does not exist, though it would suggest that the revelations of Christianity are products of the imagination alone and that God's nature would be completely different from what is currently attributed to him. I can tell you what I think God is based on my research of the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and many of the early fathers of the Catholic Church. Whether or not it is factual, I will probably not know until I die, which is one of the reasons why I actually strongly detest the act of proselytizing, because it arises when a person's zeal for a belief clouds their perspective on what that belief ought to imply.

I just wanted to respond to this rather witty portion of MisterSwig's first post because I think this warrants some exploration into some of the potential problems that can arise when utilizing analogy in a debate. Let us take a look at the two concepts under comparison here, God and the super-race of invisible lephrechauns. 1. The history of the Leprechaun goes back to olden days on the good old island of Ireland (where I trace most of my ancestry). They are described as a type of male elf, ergo a class of faerie folk, usually sporting a green suit and hat, and has a knack for hiding gold and shining shoes. They have a very rich history in folklore, some believe that they go all the way back to before the Celts came to that lonely little island just off western coast of Britain. Now as far as I can tell, there is no literature that endows them with the ability to control and organize the universe, although they have been known to occasionally play practical jokes on druken Irishmen wandering the streets at night (the intoxication of these supposed eye-witnesses of leprechaun sightings should obviously be taken into account). I've even heard that they can assume the form of a hare when in danger of being captured and grant 3 wishes if caught. But nothing about causing much to happen outside of the borders of Ireland and occasionally being the subject of some rather charming childrens books and Disney flicks like Darby O'Gill and the little people. Now, most people nowadays admit that the leprechaun is obviously a myth and primarily invoke it for the sake of tradition on certain holidays and to tell rather amazing yet obviously fictional stories. Aside from those whom are either daft and still unfortunately running around without physical restraints, or a person being out of touch with reality, few people claim leprechauns to be truly in existence or somehow manipulating the material universe. 2. The origin of the monotheistic deity goes back quite a bit, but the Judeo-Christian God traces back to the time of Abraham and Exodus in the Old Testament (Torah). No one doubts that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or any of the other people never actually existed, the primary criticism is that what happen to them was ornamented by prevailing mystical tendencies at the time. So the first obvious distinction is that while leprechauns are obviously fictional in every respect, we have pretty much alot of accurate and verifiable historical documents of people credited as being prophets of God (and the Messiah in the case of Jesus). Furthermore, many people (and I mean more than a few hundred) testify to having witnessed the allegedly fallacious miracles that are supposedly mythical. Now, all of these eyewitnesses might have been either delusional or complicit in some sort of historical fraud, but the odds of it are extremely low when you consider the testimony of historical opponents of Christianity whom knew these eyewitnesses. Now, the miracles are a bone of contention, but clearly something happened that was beyond the scope of understanding at the time, and that something obviously would demand some further study. In the case of leprechauns, I doubt that anyone would seriously suggest that we need to study that matter further. Now, I do not disagree with MisterSwig that we need more research, more experiementation, more rational thought, and less mystical explanations of things that are obviously observable by scientific scrutiny. However, I still have not seen anything concrete that would suggest that I am robbed of any of these things because of my leap of faith on the macro-issue of God. The lack of a distinction made between my beliefs and those of the science-haters in this particular post puzzles me a bit. Now to close off my response to this rather intriguing post: "A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire)

1. If we follow how God is defined by Christian standards, God is what God is, which is an uncreated entity. The infinite regression senario only holds up if God is defined as a creator whose existence is dependent upon another creator. If God is treated in his hypothetical existence (I say this because I can't back this up with hard scientific fact) as carrying the definition attributed to him (which he would have to or else he would cease to be what he is) then to divorce his attributes from his existence would be a logical fallacy. Furthermore, the axiom of existence does not necessitate that certain entities to be disqualified from existence because they are not immediately definable nor observable, or because of the magnitude of their impact on existence. You will note that I did not divorce God from existence, nor did I state that he precedes existence, but what is clearly implied in my arguements is that the high probability that an entity not yet fully observed has his hand in this best of all possible worlds. 2. I would hope that the universe doesn't reorganize itself, because then we would be living in a Hegelian/Pantheistic universe, I'll take the Objectivist version of metaphysics over that any day of the week. But to stay on topic, the arguement about entropy is mostly a testament to the parallel nature between science and theism, until further data is uncovered, the arguement itself will obviously be insufficient as a hard proof. However, given that no examples have yet been uncovered where the Laws of Thermodynamics are contradicted, we have something to go on in the meantime. I'm curious to know a bit more about this theory of a universe that oscillates in cycles, can you give me any references to go after so I can read more about it? 3. If I would put God as the cause of mere existence (as in without order or a constant nature) then obviously not, but this is not the blank canvass that I am seeking to credit to God. I'm guessing that you'll all agree with me that there are no such things as accidents in existence, so if God truly does not exist, then something clearly accounts for our existence within existence. As stated before, truth is my primary goal here. P.S. - As far as a physical cause of free will versus God endowing it, I'm not really sure I can get into it without quoting what are deemed to be works inspired by God (obviously books that are not regarded as scientific). But to add a wrinkle, the human mind seems to be the only known one that can consciously rob itself of the ability to comprehend it's own existence, this is most curious and obviously demands further study. It is a shame that many psychologists still think that innate ideas triumph over human choice.

Before I give my answer to your question, which by virtue of the tone of your post will probably not be sufficient for you, I will run through a rather lengthy yet neccesary set of points in order to pre-emptively answer the various questions that would surely follow a basic , concise answer. The implied objection that I predict will come is the "If something can not be described, how can it exist?" arguement. I answer that the existence of God, like any other entity is not dependent upon anyone's ability to describe it. All existents (including God, bound by the logical laws implied in existence) exist independent of the point of view of any observer. Furthermore, the ability of someone to accurately describe it's existence does not limit it to existence. Certain phenomena such as rainbows, nebulla, arora borealis, et cetera are extremely difficult to describe verbally, paling in comparison to the obvious superiority of an eye witness account. The inability to attribute the words that would capture the experience does not impact the event itself, nor would the inability of a blind person to observe them diminish their nature. As this applies to God, a perfectly accurate explanation of him is obviously beyond me, but deduction allows the discription of many traits attributable to such an entity. For example, if you accept the Bible's take that God created what we know of as ordered existence (out of whatever preceded the act) then obviously from the work of ordered existence we can tell that his nature, which is reflected in nature, is one of logical order and purpose. Since he is also treated as the beginning of things, it seems logical to conclude that such a being is eternal, and uncreated as the consequencial affect of infinite regression is an irreconcilable paradox where no beginning or end is discernable. If God is treated as the originater of matter, then obviously such an entity possesses the ability to manipulate whatever matter is made up of, to endow it with the neccesary properties to perform their natural functions. Such a being would clearly possess intelligence and ability far surpassing what has ever been observed of metaphysical phenomena. Furthermore, as something percieved as infinite in nature, it stands to reason that his size/scope can only be measured in contrast to finite beings. But if you must have it simply stated, God is goodness, the kind that is found in all well-ordered nature. God is goodness that is constant, always in accordance with it's own nature, the nature to endow life and order to things. God is the enforcer and originator of the natural laws, and thus is always present in every event and in the causes preceding it. The endowment of free will which stems from him makes him present in human choice, thought it does not neccesitate that he dictates the choices and determines the outcomes. This would be my abridged description, I could post more, but I think I've tortured you enough for now. But just remember before you jump all over me and state that my finite response is not sufficient to describe something that is claimed to be infinite, remember that the inability of a perfect description does not negate the existant of phenomena.

Sometimes I don't know whom I loathe more, the politicians whom ask our soldiers to come up with last minute solutions to impossible problems that they helped create, or the damned media that keeps portraying them in the worst possible way they can. Unfortunately we can not visit the true justice upon these insurgents until we clean up our culture of self-hatred.

I thank you for entering the debate MisterSwig, this is exactly what I was looking for, a debate on the facts attributed to the arguement. This seems to be a slightly different worded version of what is known as the "All of reality and God's existence" arguement. One of the fundamental errors made in this appeal is the tendency to denote the "natural universe" and "reality" as being synonymous, when both clearly are not so by definition. One refers to a metaphysical concrete, the other to the epistemological definition of it. If you are making a distinction between the two and you think my assumption to be at error, please say so as I will revise my comments accordingly. I shall now proceed to break this down logically and seek to scrutinize the logic at work here. 1. "Reality" is denotative of all of that which exists. 2. Entity X is postulated to exist outside of reality. 3. Statement 2 reduces to: entity X is postulated to exist outside of all that which exists. 4. Statement 3 is a logical contradiction (semantically) and hence cannot meaningfully correspond to anything. 5. Therefore, any entity attributed with such an "existence" cannot logically exist (since it is defined not to exist by placing it outside of reality). Now from your arguement, I will make the assumption that you denote nature as being the concept of reality that denotes all that which exists. This is not an incorrect assertion in my view, for nature runs the entire measure of reality, but let us deal with the arguement. In reference to Statement 2: This arguement is a logical fallacy because statement 2 contradicts statement 1. If God exists, then by the standard presented, he/she/it must be contained in that reality. Since this error is made by theists constantly (I do not deny it), they two are subject to the consequences of presenting a logical contradiction as an arguement, and that is to be ridiculed by people whom think rationally. In reference to Statement 3: The premise here is correct. If it is a logical contradiction, then it is illogical. However, illogic is in the statement of the argument in premise two which contradicts premise one. When one merely states that premise 2 is as it is, does not mean that it is, especially when it contradicts the previous premise. Ultimately the error lies with the theists you mention, I do not pretend to share their views as they are entirely indefensible. However, the error of the scientist does not negate the actual natural law, so by the same standard, under the assumption that something can possibly exist, the same standard applies. The primary problem is that many Christian theists do not have enough respect for reason, I do not share this problem myself. Indeed, and once again they can not get very far as they run into the problem of science stating the opposite. There are two primary errors with this mode of correcting a mistake by making another, and I will offer you my remedies. 1. God, regardless to what an irrational mystic asserts, is essentially something. If he exists, he has a metaphysical nature that functions as an existence, this much can be deduced from the nature of existence. By this standard, something existed (in this case, we treat God as something, and attributing of course his eternal existence, which is implied by his being infinite) so nothing was created ex nihilo. 2. Genesis does not state that "in the beginning there was nothing". The actual quote states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis, 1. 1) What existed preceding what is referred to as creation is not stated, but the implication states that God preceded the creation of the two places denoted as "heaven" and "earth". Now, to keep everything within context, heaven is only referred to as being separate from the earth in this quote, ergo it's distinction is that it is beyond the place where the subject of genesis (planet Earth) takes place. Furthermore, created does not imply "out of nothing" because the state of existence preceding genesis is not defined by scripture, so potentially creation could merely mean the distinction between the planet Earth and a separate place. This does not neccesarily mean that heaven subsumes every place beyond our atmosphere, nor that heaven and earth are the only places of reference in the universe. There is nothing that necessitates an empty existence preceding God, although I will concede that many theists seem to think this to be the case. Now as to how God created anything, this is obviously an unknown, and I am not claiming that I have any provable theories on this. However, God is treated as being an entity that is essentially cause without potency, ergo there is no potential, there is either realized action or inaction based on a clearly present nature attributed to the entity in question. The means to the actions attributed to God are not known, but it is obvious that when someone states that God creates something ex nihilo, the statement is fallacious logically. From the viewpoint of one functioning without the knowledge of the means of the entity that acts, the term miracle is an accurate way of denoting the given action from the point of view of the one making the assertion. However, this does not suggest that these acts are neccesarily without a rational basis, only that the nature of these acts is not within the scope of the observer. The discovery of fire was treated mythically by the Ancient Greeks before it's true nature was observed and a proper natural definition given. This is not an accurate conclusion. There are many things that God can not do, and this becomes evident from the flawed, yet intriguing arguements that other atheists have brought to my attention and to those of other more logically based theologians. One obvious thing that God can not do is "not be God", in other words, God can not do things that contradict his own nature. To elaborate further, I will give you examples that I have come across on some forums where similar debates have occured. Example 1: Can God create a rock so big that he can not pick it up? Example 2: Can God contradict natural law (natural law is treated as part of God's nature, so to contradict natural law would necessitate violating his own nature), by such means as burning water into ash or by creating square circles? These challenges to the assertion that God can not be omnipotent are two obviously unique paradoxes. The first suggests that God must violate his own nature in order to be God, the other suggests that God must create things that can not be observed in nature in order to prove his nature to someone bound by natural law. The problem with these challenges is that the one making these assertions has to suspend the natural law they claim to defend in order to do it, and this is a self-refuting method. God's omnipotence is not something divorced from his/her/it's nature, it is a part of it, and thus means that God's nature is not hindered by potency (ergo the potential to be potent or impotent), ergo his nature is maximized to it's fullest extent. To coin an analogy, as a human being, I am capable of swimming. However, I can not outswim a shark, as it is not within my nature. Even if I maximized my potential and became as physically fit as possible, I can not by virtue that I am not endowed with such an ability by natural law. Given the nature of the theist's view, this is obviously the case, however this does not apply to me or to God, assuming that he exists of course. The error of the observer has no impact on the nature of the object observed, by the same standard, the speculator's error does not impact the potential existence of a yet undiscovered phenomena. I myself do not have faith in the impossible, because it is a contradiction, and I do not believe in such things. P.S. - I apologize for not responding to your other posts at this time, when I have more time I will give them a proper response. I extend the same to anyone else whose posts I've not yet responded to, it is not my intention to ignore your statements.

Very interesting, my studies of the laws of Thermodynamics are still an ongoing process and I will give this debate another look. Did they actually give a list of alternative senarios in which the law might possibly not apply? I apologize, I was typing in a hurry because I had to get back to work and I didn't have time to read over my post properly. I agree with this assertion, I have still been at study on the metaphysics of Aristotle and a few others and I wasn't fully clear on what people theorized had preceded the Big Bang. This major change in condition is something that I've been trying to contemplate for a while. It is noteworthy that the behavior of stars, including such phenomena as sunspots, solar flares, and supernovas could be attributed to the Big Bang, if the actual center of the known universe at that time were of similar properties as current stars, though on a much larger scale obviously. I was implying that this "could" be the case, but what I am asserting more pointedly is the fact that MisterSwig's explanation of the universe is not sufficient grounds for claiming that the speculation on the existence of God is an automatic error. In order to assert undeniably that God is neccesary to explain the clock of thermodynamics started flowing, I would have to know and be able to prove that this law applied to all the universe, and as you have pointed out this might not be the case. As to what this would explain, provided that the second law of thermodynamics does apply to the whole universe, has more bearance on humanity itself. One of the characteristics of the Thomist view of God is that the entity in question is described as cause without potency, ergo one that exists and wills independent of matter and thus manipulates through contemplation. Such an uncovered truth would explain the origin of consciousness, and what one would describe as the soul, the means of retaining knowledge. I do not see any corelation between the explosion of a field of light and energy and the emerging of man's consciousness, if I missed something, then do explain it as I am still at study. The ramifications of something that thinks and is in a state of eternal existence would also open up windows of possibility into the question of "when I die, then what". Granted, these ramifications are highly speculative and leave us with a similar mystery to the one that most scientists accept as preceding the Big Bang. Being as I have stated earlier in this post that I do not claim to have these answers, I am not going to respond to this, other than to state that knowledge ends with the life of the individual. It is not ignorance that I am basing my arguement on, but the question of what man's final end is, as well as the knowledge that he gathers onto himself through his unique ability of analysis and abstraction. I do not neccesarily believe that God is unknowable-by-human-reason, because our reason expands our field of knowledge. Reason was present at every corner that Aquinas turned when he discovered and defined the theology that I operate under. Even when I make the leap into belief that God exists, I realize that my conclusions might well be at error, just as making a similar leap and declaring that there is absolutely no way that such an entity could exist might be at error. The other option is the one that you are articulating, that such things are not knowable and thus can't be pursued. While this does clearly apply to current human knowledge, it does not neccessitate that it would always be the case. I agree with this except in one respect, and I don't assume to speak for all Christians and theologians, but my motive is not to seek gaps in knowledge in order to make this assertion. This would indicate a hostility towards filling these gaps because I would need gaps in order to hold onto my viewpoint. Quite the contrary, the one thing I hold dearer than my own premises about God is the truth, and I am prepared to accept that God exists in none of these gaps and hense not at all. I hope you don't misread my intentions but one of them in this particular debate is to gain an understanding about the criticisms against my chosen theological and philosophical persuation. In the process, I will offer my arguements for my chosen viewpoint, and scrutinize the arguements offered against it which I might not have considered. The Endgame of this debate, thus, is not neccesarily one where one of us concedes defeat (in religious debates, this very rarely happens) but one where I am satisfied that I have exhausted all avenues of discourse and can thus consider their ramifications. God is not neccesarily unknowable, granted the Vatican does make this assertion but if it is to maintain it's status it must always concede the truth, even when it is not convenient for whomever may be in power at the time. Furthermore, although my primary scientific approach to this is one that relies solely on deducing from current knowns, my aim is not to slow down the journey closer to the solution, but to consider potential solutions to current problems. It would thus be assumed that contained in the nature of the given gas and dust is a process of re-collecting that would create a new star. My question would be, is the object of light that existed just before the big bang considered of a similar nature to current stars and cosmic phenomena? And if so, would it be sufficient to assert that the Big Bang was itself a massive star that resulted from all gas and dust recollecting at the centerpoint after a cycle current to our own. And if this be the case, would it be assumed that the empty space surrounding this center is finite in nature? The implementation of such an organization is obviously a mystery, and clearly we can deduce that there are laws of nature that are at work. What I am more trying to understand here is the hostility to the idea that scientific discourse can result in theism (and it does in many cases, though clearly not the majority of current scientists, most of whom are not Objectivists, but Logical Positivists). If coming to the conclusion, while adhering to reason, that God exists is so neutral, what is the neccessity for eliminating it from the equation. If it is possible, where's the beef? But just to add perspective to my viewpoints for those reading this thread, I concur that what Martin Luther coined as "Sola Fida" or by faith alone is an irrational method of knowledge, one that paves the way towards tyranny and suffering. This was also the case with the Catholic Church before Aquinas, and also today in many quarters where there is hostility towards Thomism (we are not the only theolgians in the Catholic Church obviously). But many of the Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Locke held views similar to mine (as well as Einstein), where is the error in their conclusions. P.S. - I oppose the Intelligent Design Theory on the same grounds that Objectivists do, it is not an improvment on existing scientific theory, and it will only serve to contradict established truth about the nature of the scientific process. I do not worship a God that wishes his own creations to stagnate. Hmmm. I will admit that I like the analogy of the unicorn better than that of the modeling clay, but I do see your point here. By the same token, would such innovations as the table and chairs come forth from some process of analyzing the current state of nature? It has been my view that man does these things through a process of altering objects such as a rock that happens to conveniently be the right height to support one's food, and other similar naturally occuring objects for one to sit upon, and then imagines them being made of something else within nature for purposes of practical manipulation and comfort. I will definately check out the source you've cited, I am always intrigued about the process of the evolution of thought. My only questions further in this regard is what part of the human brain allows this process to occur, and how did it develop in humans but not in other animals. It is clearly not an issue of the physical size of the brain, but of it's specific structure. I thank you for the added info Bold Standard, one of my purposes for starting this debate was gaining a better perspective on the nature of current scientific theory, as well as gaining a clearer knowledge of Objectivism's similarities and contrasts with my own philosophy. This will aid me in my pursuit.

My proposed debate was basically "does God exist", and the context of it is the two competing philosophies of Objectivism and Thomism, as I am not really as interested in dealing with the random arguements of proponents of Subjectivism or what I describe as Classic Mysticism/Creationism. These opening comments, which I admit go into alot of related fields, were specifically for MisterSwig, and they are my arguements for the existence of God in the context of the post that he made, which I have quoted. I had thought that he would want to engage me in this debate, but if someone else wants to do it, the "Does God Exist" question would be the starting point.

I am a former student of the Dominican order, as some here already know, and an advocate of a modified version of Thomism. Like Objectivism, this philosophical/theological viewpoint draws a good deal of inspiration from Aristotle, but there are some notable differences in most of the 5 branches of philosophy that are obviously noteworthy. As someone who has also studied Objectivism, particularly it's Epistemology and how it applies to education, I have also been a bit influenced by it though clearly the topic of debate here is one area where I do not agree with the philosophy. The question up for discussion is "The existence of God" in the context of metaphysics and epistemology. Does God exist or not, and what are the proofs that we can reference? As this debate was prompted by an off-topic discussion in another forum, I will make my claim by answering the last post on that discussion by MisterSwig, whom may wish to engage in this debate, although I am interested in getting any and every view on this. His post reads: 1. I agree that this is an accurate description for the way one would categorize any potential phenomena existing beyond our current reference of study, absent an encounter visive the senses, the imagination is clearly active in the process. However, imagination has been proven to be a catalyst in advancing the process of knowledge and study, so the fact that the imagination is involved alone does not necessitate a disproof of a theoretical existent, it merely denotes that this particular entity "may or may not" exist. I also agree that the existence of multiple dimensions is also an error that arises from thinking of the "universe" implies something other than the full extent of metaphysical existence. The issue comes up in the context of "Reality" versus "Universe", and I will now provide an arguement meant for any others wishing to enter the discussion, just so I can be clear to them as to where I stand. These two words are not synonymous in terms of definitions in the dictionary, nor are they considered synonymous in any thesaurus that I have read in my lifetime. So I will now present their various defintions to save time going back and forth to Dictionary.com or any other similar site. Universe 1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. 2. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things, the human race. 3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place. Reality 1. The quality or state of being actual or true. 2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.). 3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. 4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality. Many Christian apologists uphold that God exists both inside and outside the universe, which I personally think is an error. It is more a matter of "if God created what we now percieve as the universe, both in terms of speculation and actual categorization" then it must have existed before such a thing occurred. Technically if we assume heaven to be a real place, it would fall under the bounds of the universe and would exist in a non-material form. Now to the issue of the universe, there is the issue not only of material objects and entities, but also of energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. As this applies to the complete universe, the tendency of systems existing within is to move towards chaos, not order. This can be seen in all observable phenomena, including the life-span of a human being. If the universe is seen as eternal, then by this standard, it should be completely dead and all the universe should be a mess replete with unorganized inanimate objects and random energy. If this standard is incorrect, and the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is at error, what is the correct explanation of order versus chaos in the universe? (I apologize for any details that seem unneccesary to our particular discussion MisterSwig, I just wanted to be sure that my topic is understood by everyone reading it) 2. The theory of evolution states that all life on earth originated from inanimate matter, and thus proceeds to categorize nature based on observable material phenomena. There is no contradiction between this and my beliefs about the way science should be approached. Furthermore, man is described in Genesis as originating as dust, which is not in contradiction with the inanimate matter theory. The only difference between them is that Genesis does not contain the specific naturalistic explanation of what components of what is refered to as dust (ergo elements) and thus it is clearly not sufficient for scientific study, and in the field of science should be treated as an obsolete predecesor of evolution. The point of contention is the assertion that naturalistic categorizations which improve upon the more generalized reference that man originated from dust neccessitate that God does not exist or did not cause the process. It would, however, be accurate to describe anyone whom openly attacks evolution as being evil as irrational, and I share your sentiments on such Christians. Thus you could describe me as a proponent of Theistic Evolution. As far as the Sun and the consequence of planet earth's formation goes, the " it happened on it's own" explanation to how or why the energy that makes up the Sun organizes itself in such a way as to allow for the conditions that makes Earth, or any other planet of similar make up that may exist, is not sufficient by virtue of the 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics. If the tendency of a star is to burn out, why do new stars continue to form. If the tendency of an object is to do something, and it does something else that would seem contrary to that tendency, the issue must clearly be addressed. The belief that God takes an active role in the organization of existents is a leap of faith, but I have seen no other explanation that sufficiently explains the following phenomena. 1. The organization of existents. 2. The re-organization and utilization of energy in spite of a tendency towards chaos. 3. The fact that human beings are capable of imagining things that either do not exist or have not been observed with the senses. (Note: this does not imply spontaneous thought independent of experience, but the ability to alter observed phenomena in one's mind to create new imaginary phenomena.) 4. The ability of man alone to philosophize.

As I do not wish to go any further against the purpose of this forum, I am not going to respond to this here, but I will open a topic on the debate forum and answer it there. Do feel free to respond to my answer there.

"A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire) I'll take that into account while I page through my copies of Albertus Magnus' and Thomas Aquinas' thoughts on the subject of science, reason and being a Catholic. P.S. - If you wish to debate the nature of scripture with me on the debate forum, I'd be happy to, I'm in the mood for a good challenge and you appear knowledgable. I'm probably going to get in trouble for going against the purpose of forum on this one, but I challenge you to scrutinize the borders of the entire material universe and give me your logical assessment of their nature and of all things contained within it. There is something which is known as metaphysical speculation, in which one makes a hypothesis about what can not yet be scrutinized by our senses yet clearly exists. This is pretty much what Albert Einstein used in order to form his own theories about physics. Far from being the whim ridden process of primitive witch-doctors, this is indeed a scientific process where one takes into account the probability of his predictions. Obviously any theoretical source of the physical universe must be subject to a rational discourse and the answer is something that is rationally knowable and also within the bounds of reality, but this can not yet be done with full certainty until the given phenomena can be observed. Your description of faith is accurate in regards to the Lutheran doctrine of "Sola Fida" (By Faith Alone) but it does not apply to my methods as I am in a constant state of reproving my own premises about everything via the Aristotelian model. You may wish to simply state that if you can not observe it, it is not there, at which case the conversation ends and you go about your own business. When I said outside the "rational realm", I meant to imply that which can be observed and thus demonstrated to others as 100% undeniable, ergo absolutely certain. There is obviously a great deal of uncertainty involved in trying to speculate on the possibility of something existing that we can not yet observe. Perhaps this was the wrong term, which was also used as a concession of any possibility of convincing anyone to avoid this exact conversation because frankly you will succeed in nothing other than wasting your own time by arguing with me on this here. I have come here to learn more about Objectivism and to occasionally give my two cents when something that directly concerns me pops up. Before I get too wordy and forget that I'm getting off topic, If you wish to correct me for any philosophical errors that you believe I have commited, I again invite you to the debate forum where we can allow others to ridicule the obvious idiocy of Bishop Arinze without this obvious distraction.

1. My original question was very specific because I wanted a specific answer, if you consider this rude, that is not my problem. Furthermore, I think this fit of sanctimony is highly disingenuous, especially considering your choice of words in describing certain members of this forum. 2. Whenever you accuse someone of not being a philosopher guided by knowledge, it pretty much goes without saying that you provide evidence of those whom you accuse. You have thrown out some rather sizable charges, well worthy of a good lampooning. 3. Considering that this was in response to you trying to bait me into joining your name calling spree, probably because you deduced that I am a non-Objectivist, I'm not of a mind to feel any guilt for my words. So in response to this, if you ever have a mind to discuss like resonable human beings, knock off throwing out terms like "Randroid" and trying to inspire fun from them. P.S. - Don't bother responding to my post, stick to David's as he clearly is more knowledgable than I am. But do give some thought as to your choice of words when making a claim before expecting blanket courtesy from your opponent. @David - I wish to apologize if I got out of line with Aleph earlier, in the past few days I've read several polemics against Objectivism, and all of them using the word "Randroid" like it's the writer's last name. This talking point is comparable to the buzz of a mosquito and it has been getting extremely annoying.

I see no examples to support your arguement here, I have not spoken with Bernstein personally, but I have listened to several interviews on the ARI website with him debating Thom Hartman and I don't get any traces of dogmatism. Furthermore, I disagree with both Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff on their views of the Catholic Church, but their arguements are not what I would consider dogmatic. They provide historical examples to back up their claims, a dogmatist does not waste his time with such proofs, for proof is not neccesary to assert that which ought not be proven. P.S. - One of the things that makes me a little suspicious of your motives here is the sort of "inquisitor" like tone to your post. You've seen nothing that would suggest Locke is a dogmatist, and yet you seem uncertain of it, despite reading his works. A man's character is exemplified by his works, if you are unable to grasp that, I'd suggest reconsidering throwing out accusations like this, they do not make you look smart, trust me. As someone who has myself been the victim of childish ridicule for my beliefs (though obviously different from Objectivism) I don't get a whole lot of fun out of doing it to others. I operate by the rules of reason as asserted by Thomas Aquinas. When I am wrong, I concede the arguement to my opponent and learn from my mistakes so as to continue to perfect my perspective of existence, I do not resort to name calling. When I am right, I don't presume to gloat at my opponents and again, I do not resort to name calling. I suggest learning how to debate ideas before posting again on this forum, you are clearly in over your head.

I would like to note to everyone here that I am a practicing Catholic, I have just seen the movie, and I have a confession to make. The movie was excellent, very suspenseful, and well portrayed. I have always been a big fan of detective movies and this is the first good one I've seen in a long time. One further thing to announce, Bishop Arinze is a pompous ass and completely irrational, in the same respect as the nutjob who said that the actor who portrayed Harry Potter was going to be possessed by the Devil. If conservative hack Rush Limbaugh can enjoy the movie, I don't see the sense in the rank and file Christian getting all jazzed up over this.

I am terribly sorry RC, it is always a shame to hear of police officers dying in such tragic accidents. You guys are essential to the maintanence of the order and peace that we have enjoyed for so long. It is a shamed that your profession isn't held in a higher esteem in some quarters. I hope that all parties remain rational and that the best that can will come of this situation.

I don't know if it's too late for me to pipe in on this, but I would like to take note of a few things in this conversation which I think will be of merit. EC had gone in depth about his disapproval of "diversity" in the generic sense of "affirmative action", however, his zealousy has clouded his reason immensely. I share his disdain for affirmative action, however, for writing a paper for college admission the worst thing you can do is come off as some sort of non-conformist zealot who will automatically assume that this paper is part of a politically motivated form of indoctrination, even if this is the case, there is a very practical way to get around it. "Diversity" can easily be substituted for benevolent ends that I would guess are not contradictory with rational egoism. Such as a person being admitted into a college for his merits, rather than something that would be deemed irrationally discriminatory such as assuming that "African Americans" are not capable of comprehending the periodic table (do not quote me on this as it is meant as a joke). You can simply remain silent on such issues as quotas, if they are not mentioned by name, there really isn't a point in discussing them. There is always a way to be both truthful and respectful, and this is always the best route when dealing with professors. Most professors of the physical sciences tend to be very good, unlike the grotesque morons that I had to deal with in the humanities and liberal arts departments at my university. I was alwasy walking on egg shells with alot of those folks, as they tend to be very thin skinned and quite willing to deduct points for the wrong kind of political views.

@aleph0 - Could you please give us the definition of "dogmatism" that you are operating under? Neither one of the dictionary definitions apply to any aspect of Objectivism as I understand it, and I'm pretty up-to-date on the literature. Which sources do you cite as being dogmatic that apply to the Objectivist, and please make sure that it is something sanctioned by ARI, I'm not falling for the "subjective" idea that anyone whom wishes to be an Objectivist is one. I've counted more than a dozen spelling errors in this entire interview, whoever transcribed this interview did a half-assed job. Furthermore, by Parrott's own admission, he hasn't fully studied the philosophy, so his denunciations are more in line with the "dogmatism" that aleph seems to wish to attribute to certain Objectivists, although he has yet to name any.

Occum's Razor takes care of this. "You shouldn't multiply entities needlessly". When Henry Ford developed the Model T, for it's time, it was an exceptional achievement. However, I don't see the point in pursuing the process of rebuilding an obsolete model of car in order to pay hommage to a past innovator. I don't see much difference between the analogy and it's subject, though I am sure you will differ.

Which Objectivists would you say fall into this category? Some novice who only read "The Fountainhead" or one of the senior members of ARI? If you think the latter, I have read works by Gary Hull, Harry Binswanger, Edwin Locke, Leonard Peikoff, Andrew Bernstein, and Yaron Brook. None of them fall into the category of dogmatic. If it is the former, this would be a lack of knowledge that doesn't apply to the actual philosophy itself. I'm not sure where they dug this guy up, but he is very popular in leftist circles, despite the fact that he makes Noam Chomsky look like Socrates.

This is exactly what happens when a person goes against reason, and enters what Rand referred to as "the realm of Non-A", everything becomes inverted. In this sense, the irrationalist (interchangeable with Kantian) becomes the servant of the tyrant, regardless of what his intentions are. Kant's relationship with Hegel's philosophy is thus comparable to that of an anarchist with a totalitarian despot, and thus we pave the path to both Hitler and Marxism. If Mr. Parrott is truly a rising star in academia, if things do not change, some rabid emotionalist will pick up where he laves off and Peikoff's prediction of a fascist America will become a more real possibility. We came close to falling into this trap in the 1930s during the depression, several candidates for President in the 1930s were sympathetic to the philosophies that spawned Fascism and Communism. FDR is well known for his rabidly socialistic policies, but some of his opponents would have been far worse, and unfortunately there wasn't anyone really better until Barry Goldwater came along.

I may have taken Peikoff's comparison the wrong way, I've watched all of the lectures on the ARI website and noted his references to a connection between Plato and academia during the Weimar Republic in the Ominous Parallels, and a template of Kant and Plato in cahoots sort of pops up in my mind. The historical battle of philosophers in the "otherworldly" sense does hold some legitimacy in the case of Neo-Platonism and Aristotelian philosophy, and I do think that Leonard Peikoff does hold Kant and Plato in different respects, but I think that Kant's attack on man's mind is more in line with the "No truth at all" school of the Sophists than Plato's "Reason and a superior Faith" model. I would view Kant's "otherworldliness" is traced to the Lutheran Church, which is one of several havens for Platonic Christianity, but his debating methods and his epistemology abandon Plato's arguements that an absolute truth can be known. Furthermore, Plato did not have a "this worldly" point of reference from Socrates, so a sense of perspective should be drawn between Plato's dual track of reason and revelation versus Kant's "the mind is impotent" arguement. Both Plato and Augustine had a good measure of respect for reason, although their views of this world metaphysically are loaded with irrational conclusions, particularly in the case of Augustine's belief in the nature of Free Will. This respect for reason is nowhere to be found in Kant, he holds some remnants of Augustine and Plato in his murky metaphysics, but his epistemology is completely removed from their assertments that this world is, to an extent, knowable objectively. Furthermore, when we consider Kant's contemporaries, his evasions of reason can not be explained away as the innocent errors of a pre-Aristotle philosopher who strayed from the trend towards rational thought. Kant is essentially a different kind of creature, one that is worthy of all the scorn that has been visited upon him by Objectivists, and then some. His responsibility for the chaos in Europe during the late 19th and 20th century has been clearly proven visive Peikoff's Ominous Parallels. Furthermore, disapproval of his arguements are not unique to Objectivism, my former mentor in the Philadelphia Arch-Diocese is among many critics of his that I've encountered in the Catholic Church.

His non-polemic answers in regards to metaphysics are peppered with similar contradictions, one that are so blatant that they would make Kant seem like John Locke in comparison. I don't have the time right now but within the next few weeks I'm going to examine this entire interview a little closer and see how many metaphysical and epistemological contradictions I can find. Ask yourself what is currently required to be an academic philosopher, this is essentially the greatest complement you could have paid Rand. But more basically, ask yourself what makes a philosopher academic or non-academic. There are several definitions of the word academic in the dictionary, let us consider 2 potential definitions. Academic: 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning. 2. (a)Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than technical or vocational. ( Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average. 3. Of or belonging to a scholarly organization. 4. Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See Synonyms at pedantic. 5. Based on formal education. 6. Formalistic or conventional. 7. Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention. See Synonyms at theoretical. 8. Having no practical purpose or use. Now, definitions 1-3, 5 and 6 deal specifically with someone belonging to an association, particularly one of learned scholars. However, scholarly associations or academies do not just spring up out of the ground, they are built by individual thinkers whom use their minds to collect pieces of truth from their surroundings. The Ancient Greek Academies of Philosophy are probably the earliest form of this, and they're success as institutions were dependent upon the ideas they were founded on, not the other way around. This brings us to definitions 4, 7 and 8 which underscore the disconnect now in place between individual persons and institutions of learning. In a truly objective society, these definitions would not apply to this word, but because of philosophers like Mr. Parrott, many young minds become alienated from institutions of higher learning and regard academics as voodoo mysticism, which is not really that far off base. Furthermore, absent a supportive example of an academic establishment to illustrate what is implied by an "Academic Philosopher", such terms become vague and could be used to describe any association advocating any ideas, the only requirement is that they have the backing of some institution with a past track record. I don't think that most Atheistic/Secular Philosophers fancy being equivocated with Catholic students of Theology such as myself. You will note that the various Catholic Universities that were started by the Dominican Order in Europe predate American Universities by several centuries. If he is fully consistent in his criticism, no one will understand what the hell he's saying and will assume that it was something intelligent. This is hardly the tactic of a philosopher concerned with truth, but when remember that we are dealing with Kantian criticism, we realize that truth is the caprice of the sophist engaged in convoluted rhetoric. During my time at West Chester University of Pennsylvania, I debated many Kantians in the philosophy department, and I can testify right now that not a single thing that they argued could be made sense of. Essentially you are dealing with master chameleons whom will morph from a Pragmatist to a Hegelian absolutist in seconds flat if backed into a corner. I too have a hypothesis that I started researching not long ago. I don't think that there is really much connection between Kant and Plato, as Leonard Peikoff suggests, I think that the origin of Kant's epistemology goes to a different school that Plato was at odds with. I am currently doing some research on Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias and a few others to see what kind of parallels I find between them and Kant.

@David - I actually said something similar to the person who I was debating, who was himself a big time fan of Mill and Bentham, I also told him that he was a better debater than this guy probably is. Unfortunately my opponent is pretty clearly in the subjectivist realm, and is not open to reason, which he views as merely the slave of the instinct driven passions. @Spano - From what I gather, he read Intro. to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, and the Fountainhead. While these three books provide a good beginning, these are far from sufficient. Furthermore, this fellow is a bit of a drama queen, I would not use such colorful metaphors to describe the Critique of Pure Reason, though it is immensely mistaken and utterly absurd. @IamMetaphysical - I have always been perplexed by people's desire to, if you'll forgive the expression, be non-metaphysical. Essentially what this man states is that in order for individuality to exist, our one massive, still unmeasureable universe is not sufficient and that we need 5 billion of them, one for each human being with functioning sensory perception.

Synthetic A Priori This site contains an interview that was used in a debate by an opponent of mine on another forum who was arguing in favor of subjectivism/utilitarianism. Upon reading it, I discovered a rather hateful and frankly irrational polemic against both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff at the end of it. (entitled "Against Objectivism") Most of the other parts of the interview are pretty much rehashes of Kantian philosophy by a second-hander who is more keen on worshipping a philosophy steeped in complexity rather than explaining it's actual use to human beings. I am curious to know if anyone else has read this interview, or whom wishes to read it, and offer up some comments on what your assessment is of this ad hominem attack on Ayn Rand and perhaps also the current state of the Kantian philosophers whom are becoming dinosaurs in a world of ever-growing trends of nihilism, post-modernism, and existentialism.

My criticisms of the book are not based on the contradictions with Catholic Dogma or scripture, such things are outside of the rational realm and are either taken on faith, refused on the same principle, or the entire issue is pushed aside as unknowable or unprovable. What I am more interested are the historical fallacies that are present here, Dan Brown may be aware of these fallacies and is merely writing a work of fiction (which is in itself harmless), but the people who read it and automatically assume it true usually are lacking in education. 1. The book connects Leonardo Da Vinci with the Montsegur order, which in reality is far from the truth. Da Vinci was a solitary person, he intentionally avoided associations with religious orders like this because such groups tend to bring unneccesary chaos into the life of a person whom would rather create using his mind than get caught up in waring forms of mysticism. 2. The "V" shape in the Last Supper painting between Jesus and the alleged Mary of Magdalene has no connection with the female vessel, it was used for a dramtic affect depicting the revelation that someone was about to betray their chosen leader. 3. The afeminate looking apostle in the Last Supper is not Mary Magdalene, it is John the Evangelist. Many renaissance works have depicted him as appearing somewhat afeminate, particularly the long hair and the smooth face. 4. The myth of the holy grail has no connection with renaissance thought, this is a product of medieval legends such as King Arthur (which everyone knows is itself a work of historical fiction). This myth was brought back by the 19th century romantics, and that is probably where the author got his inspiration from. 5. If Jesus was truly crucified by the Roman method, even if he were later taken off the cross, before dying, the physical damage done to his body would have killed him. The medical technology needed to heal someone with the kinds of injuries that were inflicted upon him was not possible until more than 1800 years later. I think it's a larger leap of faith to believe that Jesus could have survived the crucificion than it is to believe that he was reborn by the intercession of some higher power. P.S. - Everything that I have stated is meant within the context of explaining the historical ramifications of this work, not to try to argue in favor of the Christian faith. I just wish to re-emphasize this because I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea about what I'm saying.