Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

OrthodoxBerean's Achievements


Newbie (1/7)



  1. From the Objectivist stand point what is the point of living? I mean if we are here accidently why pursue something that has the chance of ending up in misery? Did Ayn Rand die happy after the death of her husband?
  2. Ah, I see what you are saying, but I still think that there is no violation. God, in himself, has all components (the stuff) that make up the natural. None of these are confused with each other. All are what they are in there respective identity. I would say that in God all was in potential until he brought them from himself and it became actuality. Just like in a seed is an oak tree in potential. In God was all that is in potenetial. When he created it it was what it is in actuality. So I would not say that God is everything. I would say that God is A and in him exist ,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,... That which he used to create the world from himself could be taken from him without destroying his essential nature. Just like I am A, but my heart is not A. As a matter of fact my heart can give life to someone else that is not me, but it was a part of me when with me. In this case since I am human and my nature depends on this part for me to have life my essential nature would be destroyed. In God that which was used to create the universe is not something that would destroy his nature by allowing it to not be a part of himself. I guess it would be like a finger nail. It is a part of me but when removed from me does nothing to my essential nature. My point is that I can conceive of God without saying that the existence of God must be the same is the primacy of consciuosness.
  3. Thanks for your response. I really didn't want to get into whether or not God exist as much as the logical consistency of what I am saying given the terms used and relavent context. It might be said that God is beyond logic in certain evangelical circles, but the more orthodox maintain the God is a rational being and that logic would be an aspect of his rational nature. Thanks.
  4. As I understand it Objectivism teaches that existence has primacy over consciousness. I agree. It must. Although, an objection to the Christian idea of God is that the idea of God creating is the same as the primacy of consciousness. I don't see how that follows necessarily. Correct me if I am wrong but from what I read the problem with the primacy of consciousness is that it crontradicts the law of identity and existence itself. Correct? I cannot look at a rock and think "turn into a stone" and it do so. Although, that is only the case because of my nature. Abiding by the law of identity, I must act according to my nature. If the nature of God allows him to create something from merely speaking it. It only does so because he has a specific nature and acts accordingly. If I take clay I can that from that clay make a pot. According to the Chrstian tradition all thing are from him. That which he has created is merely from himself. It was eternal in the sense that it came from him. He can't create just anything that he thinks of. He cannot create a married bachelor or square circle, because while he has a divne nature it is also a rational nature. What he creates does indeed exist and has identity. I am not sure that God is ever said to do something that is in conflict with natural laws, which I believe also flows from his nature. A point of clarification, I do not think that God IS all things I do think that all things came from him; much like in infant is from me but not me. If God can be all things at any given time then the existents could be said to be from him and not necessasarily that he simply created soemthing out of nothing. The something the he created from was himself. What do you all think?
  • Create New...