Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

heretic

Regulars
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About heretic

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. There is no one definition of many things and all definitions can be equally true of that thing. A is A and that is obvious and you indeed have to grasp it with your sense perception. But then the rational mind ought to move into the realm of determining what makes it to be what it is. This is the process of moving from sense perception of the thing to intellectual abstraction of the nature of the thing.
  2. Indeed "tautological" would be more appropriate for the statement "A is A". When be basically ask what makes A, A then we go into definitions whether this definitions be perceptible or deducible.
  3. Is it not redundancy when we say that "A is A" since it is obvious that "A is A"? Is not the more reasonable statement one that leads to a definition of what makes A, A?
  4. The eternal entity I can think of would be a necessary entity, which as such cannot “not exist.” This cannot be material existence (the universe from atoms to stars, energy to galaxy) because in our observation and study of things we know that such material existence is contingent. Empirical evidence of the Big Bang would appear to prove that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. The universe cannot come from nothing, but it had to come from something. This something could be a necessary being. Thus, the nature of material reality (the universe as a whole), which is contingent
  5. Good for you! But I think you are right. We are going around and around in this infinite cycle of arguments and counterarguments that could last longer than this universe. I stated that we cannot be absolutely sure that we know everything we need to know about reality and that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence given the limits of the human intellect, and you accused me of being arbitrary. I gave you my physical evidence, and you shift the burden on me to prove the existence of the necessary and eternal particle that is the source and origin of material reality when
  6. This vacuum is nothing, it is the absence of something. So it brings us back to square one. Where did things that exist come? Why is there something rather than nothing? Surely they came from something. What is this something? The necessary and infinite entity called "God" that is the only eternally existing entity in this so-called vacuum of space. By implication this entity is infinite and therefore has infinite power. Since this entity has infinite power, this entity is capable of creating out of nothing. Hence, this entity is the ultimate origin and explanation of the things that
  7. Why are you shifting the burden on me to prove that this collection of atoms and stars, which we call the universe, is eternal/infinite in duration or has always been here so that there would be no room for God? It is you who should provide that evidence. As far as I am concerned, the universe is finite and contingent and is in need of a necesary cause. By the way, that matter that is the nose on my face, which is composed of flesh, and tissues, and cells, and compounds, and atoms etc. is finite and contingent as very material thing is. That merely confirms what I see and know in my obser
  8. The Big Bang did not CREATE the universe. It STARTED the universe. Only GOD can CREATE the universe.
  9. There are a lot of unknowns here in this statement. I am still looking for the eternally existing matter that you wish to posit to arrive at the conclusion that the universe does not need God. The fact is that the universe is about 14-20 billion years old. That is the age of the universe unless you want to rewrite our science books. I am not sure I got you here. How can I be predicating my "argument on the erroneous idea of a universe extending infinitely far back in time" when I believe that the universe began to exist, and this beginning is the start of time. Contingency h
  10. Time started when things began to exist. I would want to see you contradict the scientific fact that the universe was born, is about 14 to 20 billion-years old, and is continuously expanding and not infinitely oscillating. Besides, if the universe were eternal, then it would have converted all of its hydrogen fuel, would have succumbed to heat death, and would have been in a state of uninhabitable disorder already. Something is contingent if it is dependent on something for its existence. It may or may not have existed. What is your concept of contingency? Something is ne
  11. You misunderstood my posposition. My contention is that the whole of material reality is contingent and finite, and since the whole of material reality that is contingent and finite did not come from nothing, it follows that the whole of material reality that is contingent and finite came from something that is naturally necessary and actually infinite.
  12. Eternal means infinite in duration. Eternity is subsumed in the concept of infinity. Immense means infinite in expansion. Likewise, immensity is subsumed in the concept of infinity. I was using infinity in the context of eternity. Existence has always existed? Existence is a condition of something that exists. If a certain apple exists, it is said to have existence. The question is, what is that thing that has always existed or has eternal existence? I have yet to see such a thing in nature.
  13. The temporality and suceptibility of hydrogen to decomposition speaks for its contingency, and I don't think so microorganisms pre-existed hydrogen to be the origin of this element. The universe is eternal, meaning that existence has always existed. And the universe is finite, meaning that it has a certain amount of matter that has always existed in some form? I surely would like to see how that hypothesis could be verified/falsified, and what kind of matter is that, which has always existed in some form. Are you talking about the prime matter posited by Aristotel? Are you talking about
  14. Are your assumptions as good as mine or better than mine? The fact is that the universe was born, is about 14 to 20 billion-years old, and is continuously expanding and not infinitely oscillating. Besides, if the universe were eternal, then it would have converted all of its hydrogen fuel, would have succumbed to heat death, and would have been in a state of uninhabitable disorder already. So, where would youy like to begin given the limits of current knowledge?
×
×
  • Create New...