Brien

Thanks for everyones help in this area. I think I have come a lot further in my understanding. I hope I did not come off as offsive or offended. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and you have helped me to see where I have been. That is why I came here.

MisterSwig, I don't see the point in proving that you are smarter than someone if you don't teach them something by doing it. I have always been taught that the existence of reality and man's ability to test it is the foundation of science. If you mean to say otherwise please explain what you mean. If you mean to say that I misused the word please say so. I posted the question to learn not to argue. To me, it seems that this forum should be for teaching, not insulting.

Just to clear things up when I said "before," I meant before I posted this thread.

David, The observations of theists that have led them to believe God exists is the world around them. Primitive the conclusion may be, it still meets the basic requirements for a theory. That was what I was trying to get at. And I also agree that a theory can be proven. By “good theory” I merely meant something that reasonable people would accept. I would agree that a theory must be good to some extent, but some people seem to accept just about anything. And about facts - Now I think you may have misunderstood me… I did not say that facts are hard to come by, I said they are harder to come by than theories. I could make up a theory about anything. I would also agree that God's existence is not a fact. When I said, “Just like you cannot prove a god exists you cannot disprove that a god exists (as far as I am aware).” that was my question. My standard of proof is reason, but before I had not I had not heard reasoning for the statement “God does not exist.” It was only stated. I asked the question for people to answer it. As for your last question, I made a typo: will = with

Hmm…. A much better explanation of “A is A” Daniel. But I would have to disagree with the approach you are taking. In the law of identity, Aristotle showed that everything must have an identity and that identity is the concept that refers to the aspects of something, or its particularities and specific characteristics, if I am not mistaken. And most every religion has, in fact, fulfilled these requirements for their god(s) by giving them particular attributes. But even so I still hold the argument that this law of identity is a physical law that can only be applied to something in the physical universe. The “something” that theists refer to as God cannot actually be described by the word “something.” In case you would bring up the argument that an object cannot have two identities I will go ahead and say that every religion cannot be right, and maybe none of them are right. But even still, God would not be an object.

Thanks for the fast reply. I would like to make it clear that I am not arguing for the existence of God, merely that I do not understand how it can be considered a fact that God does not exist. So in response, when it comes to discussing religion and science I believe that some words may be getting lost in their meaning. Science operates on the foundation that in order for something to exist it must be part of something, namely the physical universe. Religion, on the other hand, believes that there is something beyond the physical universe (Note that ‘something,’ as used here, is a misnomer since it is nothing in the physical universe, there is no word for what it really is). The two views do not coincide so you cannot disprove one with the other. Secondly, concepts are not part of the physical realm. Do they not exist? I think that there are a lot of things that we cannot, see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. Lastly, please know that I am not trying to convince you to believe in God, nor did I say there was any reason to do so. I am only saying that no proof does not necessarily make God’s non-existence a fact. Let me know if what I am saying does not make any sense, I will try to make it more clear.

I have been looking at Objectivism for a long time now but I still have a slew of questions about it. I don’t think I actually know any objectivists so I’m glad I found this forum. My first question pertains to something that I have been seeing in this forum that has been bothering me. I have seen many “objectivists” make posts that say something like “…the fact that god does not exist…” and the statement seems to be a contradiction of objectivist principle. I have always been taught that a theory is simply something which is not proven. The commonly held definition is “a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” By definition, it does not necessarily have to be a good theory and it doesn’t even have to make sense. Of course a theory gains support through experimentation, the means be which the theory is made credible, but even theories that have little or no support still remain theories. For example most scientists now reject Darwin’s theory of evolution because they have found significant support for a new theory: the modern theory of evolution. So then, a theory is a prediction based on observations of the world around us and a credible theory has experimental data to support it. A fact on the other hand is much harder to come by. The theory of gravity has overwhelming evidence to support it but it still remains a theory in the science textbooks. Things denser than air fall when you drop them – that is a fact. Information based on real occurrences. Just like you cannot prove a god exists you cannot disprove that a god exists (as far as I am aware). A fact can only be made so will real evidence, not based on lack of evidence. I do not believe that these terms should be used loosely. Additionally, I have read some of Rand's essays in which she states that she does not believe in God, but have never found one in which she claims it to be a fact that God not exist. Drop me a line if you know of one, I would like to read it. In summary, I would say you may consider god an ill-supported theory, an illusion, or an absurd idea but I fail to see how you can consider god’s non-existence a fact. But let me know if I need to check my premises. Also, if you do have a proof I would be interested in hearing you out. I would prefer not to hear the “A is not A” argument though. I do not understand it. Thanks for reading.