Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Flagg

Regulars
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Darrin
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Mathematics Instruction

Flagg's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Whoops, I forgot to point out something stronger: my whole "deduction models causal interaction" presupposes that both (even meaninglessly defined) premises are granted at least the benefit of non-contradiction: if one denies the conclusion which follows anyway, then one denies at least one of the premises presupposed (by the argument qua argument) to be true. It isn't related to causation, but of increasing contextual knowledge implied by some A, which is presupposed to not be known by the recipient of the argument: the argument then expands the reader's contextual knowledge to include the wider implications of A (namely, in his framework. It's induction that models causality, my bad.
  2. Now, I think we should be careful here. As a mathematician, I should point out that imaginary numbers (i=def. sqrt(-1) etc) have no metaphysically given and non-man-made reference, but the deductions from some important proofs established in the theory have led to electronics, among other things, which have advanced humanity. Also, consider the bizarre area of abstract algebra (groups, rings, fields, etc.) and their application to your computer security! But how do such referents still gain at least some smudge of validity? Suppose I say something totally ill-defined and incomprehensible, such as 1) If all smarks are blarks, I am the Orsh of Mamanota. 2) All smarks are blarks. 3) Therefore, I am the Orsh of Mamanota. These statements in and of themselves are of course not defined at all, and utterly meaningless (to even myself), but the argument is still valid and still corresponds to reality. How? Recall that we are assuming that premise (1) and (2) at least have the identities stated (EDIT i.e. we presuppose they at least have some identity even if not defined), corresponding at an (extremely) abstract level with concrete correspondence to particulars as a concept. Furthermore, the fact that the argument is deductively valid means it corresponds to the concept of causality, i.e. identity applied in action, in the abstracted sense epistemologically. So albeit very abstract, the argument still corresponds to the generalized way reality is, and still uses reality as its King. But, the argument certainly isn't useful, especially when I don't even define my terms. But the latter statement is irrelevant to the case.
  3. I've done further study; the First Cause need not even be lengthless or widthless. Hawking's equations denote a First State, if brought into nowadays, that would be some kind of pellet of size to the order of 10^-33 m. So we don't even have to worry about the implied topology. Hawking asks us to imagine some sort of disorderly causation state here where there can be no "before" or "after." It meshes up with physics - that the first Universal state is of maximal disorder - but how can it mesh up with Objectivism and the actual notion of causation? Here's where I seize on Hawking with philosophy - such a small clown-car state of the Universe - containing all that exists - won't even have "space" enough to separate causes. What this means is, for any constituent in this soup ak, and for all other constituents a1, a2, ..., ak-1, ak+1, ..., an, ak's identity affects all other identities in the universal set at the same time. This creates some kind of incomprehensibly large spiderweb of causation (but not infinite in size, of course) that all happens simultaneously. This causes a wavefunction-collapse. Some argue the collapse had a 95% chance of happening; some have argued (and of course I hold) for 100%. How can this sort of causation make sense? Well, loosely, since causation denotes time, we still have a state internally and externally outside of time. Now, don't imagine - in either case - that we have some sort of soup of all the constituents of reality just hanging out for some past eternity pushing against one another and then suddenly going "geez, let's make a universe today!" No. The state here is outside of time, not eternally present (an invalid statement in the case of this Universal State, since it by definition has no precedent causal referent). It simply is, as the universe as a whole is now, but also internally, as well. The effect is the universe. Bang. We thus have a finite chain of causes, with an eternal universe, making sense both in physics and Objectivism. I like it. Comments?
  4. I haven't the time to review all posts; sorry if I am repeating anything here. Just start with the metaphysical beginning point: sense perception - not the logically precedent points, i.e. that existence exists, or even that something's independent of the mind, or even that you're conscious. Heck, I'll just assume that the sense perceptions are indivisible, like a monist. This is a really loose definition: Sense perceptions =def. "The big arse glob, intuitively, of what's going on with you right now" exist =def. to posses identity, i.e. a nonempty set of quality. axiom =def. that which must be used to deny in any proof of the contrary. Remember, we're not question-begging when assuming the laws of logic to prove the axiomatic foundation of the laws of logic. Two different things there. A1. Sense perceptions exist. Proof of Axiomatic Nature: Suppose X is a proof that your sense perception isn't so. But you at least perceive the proof. QED. Let's just assume that the evidence of your senses is where you start, and it is irreducible. Simple enough, eh? From this it follows that, for at least one element of "reality" (even a silly solipsistic reality) that A is A. Your sense perception is itself. I.e. we have, for all (i.e. the only assumed) reality-constituent p, p^T=T or pvF=T That's a connection with the Law of Identity. Similarly Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle follow as axioms; the connections are similar, as well. The other three Laws of Logic, distributivity, associativity, and commutativity, can be grasped partially with one metaphysical existent p here, but until the axiom of other particulars is established, their particular reach isn't yet grasped. Considering that separate identities exist within sense perception, and that something exists outside of sense perception (your identifying tool), and that your sense perception delivers an external reality, are also axiomatic, with reality being the precedent King of these axioms. But whatever; the set of existents is nonempty (it has our "p") and one may ask, "well, have you checked in all corners of existence that these things are true?" One doesn't have to do that. Excluded Middle: p v not(p) = T De Morgan's on this property yields not (p v not(p)) = not(T)= not (p) and not (p) = F (by Idempotence) yielding not(T) = F independent of consideration of any particular, meaning it holds for all particulars in the context of direct consideration of correspondence to reality. These puppies hold everywhere in metaphysics. Also, as a side note, since time presupposes causation (i.e. specifically motion) which is the Law of Identity in action, then asking "Will the laws of logic metaphysically apply in the future?" means to ask "Will the laws of logic apply to situations where the laws of logic apply?" So much for the "problem" of induction.
  5. That's at the very least because the footage and photographs of her are almost always from the latter part of her life, I would suppose. I remember watching this when I was 18, and not thinking once about it, but now at 30 I'm kinda like hmmm: Look at her piercing eyes in this interview (the early Mike Wallace interview) as she rips the guy to shreds for basically having her on the show to ridicule her on national TV. Growl. I have it in for redheads. My girlfriend is one; I also adore Allyson Hannigan and ... whoever the redhead was from That 70's Show. And from the older crowd, Julianne Moore is still yummy. The most perfect product of Hollywood will always be Audrey Hepburn, that being said. Perfect delicate face + perfect eyes + generally joyous casting and behavior = perfect beauty.
  6. The Southern Plains during storm season. One obsessed with nature may wonder what the value is with flat grasslands and dangerous storms, but they don't inherently possess the beauty I give them. It's the fact that I can use my mind to identify severe weather situations, plan in the context of chasing (something weather forecasters never give), and then use my skills to navigate the storm, position properly, and capture the beast that I caught with my mind, all while relaying scientific and civic warnings to the Weather Service so they can utilize my skills to warn people who do not have the knowledge, skills, or time to learn how to avoid a dangerous situation not of their own choosing.
  7. While I consider it theoretically proper for me to donate money to the homeless, the fact is that a greater proportion of homeless utilize such funds to further drug or alcohol habits rather than pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, in comparison to the average homed person. That's statistics. It is certainly unfortunate for anyone homeless by means of circumstance outside their own choice, and I've certainly contributed to those who are homeless through immediate recognition of this kind of situation (i.e., I donated to the victims of the Parkersburg tornado that I chased last year), but many of the perpetually homeless have chosen to be so and therefore do not deserve handouts. For those using the handouts to maintain their situation (the aforementioned addicts, for instance), this is actually wrecking them further, making the action evil even if one is an altruist. Those on the streets to whom I would not mind donating a dollar do exist, but to determine whether their case warrants it would be an improper expenditure of time in relation to my own life and to the minimal benefit they would gain from the amount I could rationally be free to give in my own context of finances. It's like setting laws about statutory rape - some younger people may be capable to evaluate complex sexual situations properly with one over-age, but such evaluation would take so long that it is more proper legally to hold to a properly evaluated standard that fits the majority.
  8. Actually, cocaine, speed, and heroin (in moderation, however small "moderation" would be in their cases) does not alter the mind in the sense Rand blasts - i.e., in the sense that it alters perception of reality as any dose of LSD high enough to affect the brain would do. To tone down heroin a bit, take classic old opium smoking - it leads to many similar physical "joys" and mental "opening-ups" as alcohol gives in relationally similar moderation. Rand and Peikoff may not know this, but through no fault of their own - their general rejection of any drugs and the subsequent disinterest in studying how it would effect their bodies is proper. However, they're still right; even though alcohol is addictive, it takes a much longer time and many indulgences that surpass moderation to take hold, whereas with cocaine and heroin, comparative "moderate use" (in the sense of results similar to moderate use of alcohol in singular instants) can quickly lead to one's capacity for choice being pressed - or, if moderation is passed - completely squashed. One cannot "moderately use" heroin for a week without the chemicals blasting the body in its absence, more or less maintain its moderate use for a lifetime while avoiding addiction completely, as one can with alcohol. Thus, they are still correct in maintaining that it is improper for a rational person to use. Should still be legal, though.
  9. Old thread, but I was reminded when reading this paragraph of Rand's hilarious commentary that Wittgenstein's theory of concepts was a perfect description of a mind out of focus. I need to look at what he said and compare it to Rand's theory again to completely re-grasp the humor here, but I recall a dozen years back that this was pretty solid comedy on Miss Rand's part.
  10. Another comment: the unusual nature of the brains of autistic savants does entail, in several cases, the ability on the part of the autistic to demonstrate a high capacity to integrate and apply concepts in one particular area. Although in today's society of achievement recognition, such autistics may earn and survive based on their incredible skill in their respective areas, the fact that they are incapacitated in other areas entails that they, as a whole, could not have survived well in the nomadic hunter-gatherer situations in which our ancestors lived and evolved. Such early autistics may have prompted humans as a whole to advance in areas that the "normal man" would not have epistemologically been capable of developing, but in most cases, my guess is that their lack of overall ability to integrate in all areas of their lives meant they died early. Had that not been the case, we'd all be autistic, for the relatively unchanged metaphysical situation for the vast majority of our history would have meant the early autistics proposed would have remained the same throughout history, since the proposition you mentioned presupposes the survival of early human species Since we're not all autistic savants, but normatively able in all areas, I think the hypothesis is easily dispensed, although it did provoke some interesting thoughts.
  11. Likely not precursors. As Dr. Peikoff has recently observed, the lower intelligent mammals (dogs, in his discussion) exhibit a very poor, inhibited ability to exhibit free will. My own personal thought and observation in that matter is that the lower primates from which we descended increasingly used and developed this free will, as the ability to rearrange the world independent of (or, more than likely in most cases for them, in contrast to) inherited instinct is quite obviously a superior survival trait than leaning back and relying on instincts. Take a look, for instance, at how quickly adaptable a young chimpanzee can be to us humans - but, as it grows into adulthood, choice is defeated by instinct, likely because such an identity is what allows that species to survive (so similar to how drastic a human's exhibition of choice is as an infant in comparison to adulthood). Very likely, the more nomadic nature of our ancestral branch from the common ancestor with chimps necessitated our development of choice. Chimpanzees may even be "better off" evolving the ability to integrate concepts well enough to dispense of instinct, but as they stick to a particular geography, such development is not necessitated, because their remnant instinct is minimally necessary for an individual chimpanzee's survival in such a static environment, and nature always sticks with the simpler extant case until the species needs to change to survive (or else, extinction). For chimps, their various locales did not lead to choice as a necessary trait. For us, our ancestors gradually gained it until, eventually, the necessity of instinct in our survival came off like our tails. Unlike all other animals, our choice is our means of survival, not our instincts. This is evidenced by the fact that the modern apes, whom shared a recent common ancestor with us, have all retained the quality that instinct is at least the most important means of survival - we're the only ones who "grew out of it." Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that our ancestors were not autistic, but instead were much like chimps who were a bit more advanced. We might be able to teach a time-warped ancestor how to hunt skillfully and perhaps even basic language and first-grade arithmetic (to the geniuses), but, ultimately, our ancestors would simply just use what he chose to integrate about the former in his savage hunter-gatherer roamings inherent to their former necessarily nomadic qualities. They'd probably forget about the former entirely. An autistic, by contrast, still maintains the identity of a human, but is outside the norm: in certain areas, his brain is so naturally miswired that he loses the property of choice (and thus integration) of how to operate in these areas. He needs others to survive, since he as a human now lacks the hardwired instinct a "choice-inhibited" distant ancestor would have leaned upon had his own instinctual capacity not been affected by this hypothetical brain-scramble. It is important to not drop the context that a severely inhibited autistic, as a human, has no instinct to "fall back on" - choice gradually overcame extant instinct; instinct could not have suddenly disappeared before intellectual integration as it is in humans today developed, or humans would not have survived a single generation. Catching a ball is remnant instinct, not intuition. As humans, we still need to dodge the occasional predator, tossed spear, or falling piano to survive; therefore, our instinctual reaction judgments have survived (some are obviously better than others, such as a ball player in your example, but all properly functioning men have this built-in). Perhaps in some distant future a culture so advanced could exist for so long that such instincts fall away; likely humans would be replaced with descendants who are able to quickly calculate such trajectories by means of powerful prior integration, leading to the use of choice as a better means even in this regard than instinct would be (and subsequently the falling away of that particular inferior instinct). Such may be evident today already, i.e. in the ways wide receivers and outfielders utilize choice to at least improve their innate instinctual reactions. It would probably take a lot longer than our ancestors utilizing choice to improve and ultimately dispense with whatever instinctual means of survival they once possessed, since our ancestors needed to do so to survive, and (hopefully) future cultures will not necessitate such survival scenarios. As an extreme case for my proposition, observe what happens when a person who has properly been evaluated psychiatrically as totally psychotic or severely retarded: their capacity to choose has been so hampered that their resultant behavior, utilizing the remaining trace of inhereted instinct that is inefficient for their survival as a fallback for the loss of the ability to integrate concepts in all areas, would mean their deaths in the wild immediately. They cannot choose to integrate reality, and their lack of aforementioned fallback gives the expected result: dangerous irrationality and/or complete inability to deal with other humans or with reality itself. Be sure not to equivocate an unusual mind (such as an autistic's mind in the extreme, or a person with a choice-overpowering chemical brain imbalance in the more common case) with the human mind which represents the majority of properly functioning men. People wishing to demonstrate to me that determinism (or at least compatibilist free-will) is the case often propose such examples, and doing so is the same on their parts as claiming that nobody at all can run because someone can simply break their legs with a club. . Unusual cases are a metaphysical given, and examples abound apart from the brain - take dwarfism for instance - but such should not be considered the norm of human progress (but, of course, not "inferior" as such abnormal folk, provided they aren't catatonically incapacitated, still possess the identity of a man relying on personal choice and therefore have the same rights as every "normal" human).
  12. Flagg

    God exists

    As one can understand the arguments presented (and counterarguments given to your own arguments) then one is not "less smart" or "severely lacking in logic." A lesser intelligence wouldn't grasp the meaning of what is being said throughout this thread, and would at the very least take more time than the average poster here to comprehend it. Don't confuse an accusation of hard-headedness with one of stupidity. If what you presented at the first here is so, it is admirable that you gained your knowledge through self-study and thought. Nobody can argue against that method here; Rand didn't have a Ph.D. But, at the same time, the proper methodology here is to listen to the arguments and follow the logic where it leads. To this forum, it leads to Objectivism - therefore, if you reach different conclusions, prepare to retort with extremely strong counterarguments for all of us to consider. We're asserting Objectivism is true; you, visiting Objectivism Online, knowingly are not. Should you provide deep challenges to particulars of Objectivism, I'm sure everyone here will give it the utmost consideration and thought, unless they themselves are irrational. However, nothing in your critiques (that I've seen) present any kind of challenge that has been assessed and dispensed long ago. Regarding Spinoza's argument through essence: in our current context of knowledge, physics necessarily dispenses of the notion that all existents are composed of an identical fundamental essence metaphysically. Although all matter is, at its base, comprised of fermions, even these fermions themselves have different identities (six, if I recall correctly). If it weren't for these different spin-states, no matter could exist at all. There could only exist a bunch of fermions that wouldn't have anything to do with one another - that's what you're left with in Spinoza's universe. Even if one stamps his foot and screams that there must be one essence, our knowledge of the necessarily divergent identities of the fundamental composition of existent matter via physics leads to a contradiction metaphysically, rendering such a claim of the unity of essence arbitrary and subject to dispensing. And asking "well, all matter is ultimately fermions, so why isn't all matter of the same basic essence?" would drop the context that these fermions themselves have different identities, i.e. they cannot be of the same essence. One might as well drop the ball all the way up to stating that God is everything because "hey, this stuff all exists in general!" Why would one define God as the fundamental essence even if there was such an essence to begin with? There is no logic implying that a fundamental essence is God; all that is implied metaphysically is that there is a fundamental essence. One may argue from organization and the "pockets of decreasing entropy," as it were, but all of that can be explained through physical laws presupposing metaphysical identities of the constituents and reactions therein. For instance, Ancient American Indians in Oklahoma may have marveled slack-jawed at the sudden formation of springtime tornadic supercells arising suddenly from seemingly nothing more than a sunny, warm, and somewhat humid day, but modern meteorology accounts for all of it: wind shift at weather fronts or features coupled with wind shear and available energy granted by heat and moisture (with some other conditions) lead to, at times, a big honker of a twister plowing through cows in the countryside. I know - I chase 'em. "On the other hand, if A=A, where did it all come from?" - It couldn't have "come from" anything. All fundamental components of existence are eternal, in the sense that time cannot be applied externally to the Universe. Even the Big Bang Singularity necessitated by physics and mathematics could not have "come from" something before - in its external and internally timeless (i.e. metaphysically unrelated to any outside context or even internal context of motion) and, due to the identities of the fundamental particles of existence necessitated through physics by that state, the Singularity led to motion (time), separateness (space), and eventually, to us. This, by the way, rules out a Creator God by the impossibility of the contrary. See my post near the bottom of the thread here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=14971 I am not a regular member here, but I am certain (I hope!) that this forum has humor on it somewhere. But in the context of something of a question of such fundamental metaphysical, epistemological, and possibly moral and political relevance such as that of the existence of God (or in this subsection on philosophy in general) humor even in minor usage may very easily lead to sidetracks and thread derailments when more important subjects are to be considered. This is not saying that it's proper that no humor should exist - only that it should be the vast exception to the norm while talking about this kind of stuff, and in such cases must be related in a side-dish sense to the topics being considered, to wit (in the context of your post, courtesy Monty Python): Pay attention especially to the first quote and you'll do just fine here, so long as you quit your hardhead habit.
  13. The Universe has a finite beginning in the past under any constant time-unit, as has been proven by physics (see Linde, Linde, and Mezhlumian, "From the Big Bang Theory to the Theory of a Stationary Universe"). Additionally, prominent singularity theorems assert that there existed a singularity point approaching infinite density and approaching zero size which gave birth to the universe as it is. I always say that the more I see of the world, the more I like Ayn Rand. Rand, not familiar with this very technical theorem (as she wasn't properly a physicist), asserted through philosophical consideration - and quite correctly so - that the Universe, while eternal, is finite in internal quality. Although she and Peikoff are quite correct in stating that existence qua existence has no relational quantity with time, and is thus eternal in the technical philosophical sense (i.e. literally outside of time), this doesn't mean that internal actions cannot be considered via means of an analysis of the impossibility of an infinite set of causal history. More modern and less fundamental thinking Christian theists from the Aristotelean school of thought - like my friend Dr. Bill Craig, whom I hold in the same "half respect" regard (although in a less important modern sense) as Ayn Rand held Aquinas - holds, as Rand does, that the set of causation is finite, and thus leads to God: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause; 2) The Universe began to exist; 3) Therefore, the Universe has a cause. Now, as Dr. Peikoff has pointed out in a recent radio broadcast, there's a problem with Premise 2. The Universe is the set of everything that exists. It is permanent. But Dr. Craig has faced this criticism before, but Craig clarifies, in a sense, that what he means here is that the Universe sprang from a First Cause, as the Big Bang Theory asserts. Peikoff is absolutely right. And so is Craig. But, while Craig is additionally correct that this First Cause is internally and externally timeless (similar to Rand's sense of "eternal"), he is wrong in asserting that the First Cause is a conscious Divine being willing the matter, energy, and motion of our Universe out of literally nothing through a (timelessly existing!?) "completely free" decision. Craig is asserting that the Big Bang theory in physics mirrors the metaphysical necessity for a finite causal history and proves that, as Rand already anticipated in Galt's speech (paraphrased): God created everything that exists from nothing by means of arbitrary whim. This doesn't seem like an attractive option. Unfortunately for Craig and completely in line with Rand - a strict author and philosopher not knowing of the deep physics itself - the Big Bang theory implies that the Singularity caused the Universe, since it actually existed and since it must, by philosophy AND by physics, contain all constituents of matter and energy (fermions and bosons, etc.) superimposed in a state with infinitesimal size (which is fine, because these fundamental building blocks themselves have infinitesimal size). Applying any time unit to this process (i.e. any unit of relational motion ) yields that this cosmic singularity existed only at t=0, i.e. it did not exist necessarily for any duration of time. Therefore, it is argued by some people ascribing to the floating concept of some "absolute notion of time" that this singularity therefore couldn't have technically existed. But not only does physics point to a relational need for time, philosophy does as well, since time is necessarily an epistemological assessment of a constant metaphysical relation (i.e. "second" epistemologically is related to the metaphysical motion of light over a set small displacement). In metaphysics, we do not have some "god clock" to relay the race; we only have causation and motion of the fundamental existents of reality. Period. And what is happening at this supposedly "impossible" t=0? The Universe, by the necessary proof of mathematics in accordance to data that has been properly observed and interpreted in physics, existed "at this time" in a motionless, distanceless state. There was no "time" that the universe existed in this state, nor was there a "time before t=0" where this state didn't exist, as lesser theists screaming that atheists believe that the Universe arose from nothing constantly blather. This is where Rand and Peikoff truly come in - not only is there no external referent, as they correctly state, but there is not an internal referent, either. At "t=0," the cosmic singularity isn't "there for a vanishing instant." Since there is no motion, it simply is. It doesn't "spring from the nothing before"; there is no "before" and there is no "nothing," since existence exists and the fundamental constituents of reality are necessarily eternal philosophically and physically, as discussed above. At the "t=0" Cosmic Singularity State, in short, the Universe simply was. Just as it simply is today. Only, no motion marked any internal time. How could such a state cause the Universe to exist in its (internally and externally) timeless state? In that state, all fundamental components of matter existed in a hyper-superimposed state, with the spins of the fermions granting absolute "instability," similar to an unstable atom today. So, although the Singularity existed in a timeless state, the instability of its components in internal relation necessarily entailed separation, meaning: motion, and therefore time and space, as a necessary result. Do not confuse the Singularity with some sort of pellet existing in some infinite space hanging out for some past-infinite time before the Big Bang. There is no "space outside the Universe," even in this superimposed state, since all components of existence existed within this state, providing no referent for "space" (imagining the Singularity from the outside with your mind does not count; the metaphysical existents making up your mind precedes such imaginary placement "outside" because all components of existence are "inside"). Likewise, it did not "hang around for a past-infinite amount of time," since there is no motion internally and externally and therefore no time at all. The singularity birthed space and time from this state due to the identities of the constituents contained within. It is not only a sufficient cause of the Universe, but due to the equations of Special Relativity and especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics, coupled with the Law of Conservation of Matter, it is the necessary cause, one that - again by the Law of Conservation - could not itself have been farted out of nothing by some hypothetical, contradictory Triune God, or any being for that matter.
  14. Flagg

    God exists

    To paraphrase an Objectivist addressing a similar theme (I unfortunately forgot the gentleman's name, but he is likely well-known on these forums I would bet): 1) If the Universe has a Creator, then the Primacy of Consciousness is true. 2) The Primacy of Consciousness is false. 3) Therefore, the Universe has no Creator. Ayn Rand has addressed the PoC for humans. Let's address the PoC for a Divine Creator. First, note that Premise (1) is a correct statement, since the PoC for a Divine Creator would exactly fit the fact that such a being constructed everything that exists, by definition of "Divine Creator." For premise (2) as applied to a Divine Creator, I argue as follows (this may differ a bit from the gentleman who authored this argument; I am not able to find his original article for verification, so if this is in fact stated by that gentlemen, I hereby additionally give nods to him): We will proceed with a proof (by contradiction) of Premise (2) accordingly: 2a) Assume the PoC is true for a Divine Creator. 2b) Then, any potential Divine Creator, before anything exists, must know at least some Universal objects, causations, and properties that have existed, exist, and will exist. 2c) But a Divine Creator has no referent to form His concepts, since nothing but His consciousness exists prior to Creation for which to form these concepts. We have a contradiction. 2d) Therefore, the PoC is false for any Divine Creator, and Premise (2) follows. One may object to (2c) that the Divine Creator is outside of time. But the Universal Creation must be a referent point, so any Divine Creator will exist in time before Creation. A second objection would be that the Divine Creator does not know He will create before He actually creates; however, He would then have no motive to construct the Universe even granted that such a notion is possible. A third objection to (2c) would be that a Divine Creator knew all Universal things at all times before He created, pardoning Him from having to engage in concept-formation. But He would have had to have known a future state in which He creates the Universe, and since before Creation He has no actual referent than Himself, He would have no epistemological reason to withhold (or engage!) this decision to Create. Such a notion of a Divine Creator which the latter sentences describe is therefore impossible. So Premise (2) is sound against all counterargument. A different definition for God is that His decision to Create *and* actual act of Creation coexist in the sense that they are not described by time. But this implies that God began to exist with the Universe, meaning He couldn't have Created it, or that the Universe is eternal (given God's *act* of creation is present in this definition), disproved by modern cosmology. All objections answered, the existence of a Universal Creator is thereby positively disproved, i.e. a proof for the nonexistence of a Divine Creator has been given. In this particular definition of God, so-called "positive" atheism holds. The Second Law of Thermodynamics demands a finite history of *any* Universal system convergent on a limit point t=0 under *any* epistemological timescale with constant unit t (interesting sidenote: the necessary finiteness of both space AND time, coexistent together, was put forth by Ayn Rand LONG BEFORE the Big Bang theories were accpeted!). This is accepted in all modern physics, proven by Alexander Vilenkin. Therefore a birth/death "infinite cyclic" God is positively disproved under any definition. To disprove a notion of a God responsible for a finite-cyclic sequence of birth and death, one must first define how a Divine hand can be seen in the birth/death process. Otherwise, the assertion is empty, i.e. begs the question, and is positively disproven. 1) If a Goddess of beauty and arts existed, then man has not created all art and beauty from reality by means of his natural talent and free will (or, in the case of beauty in the natural sense, by means of evolutionary remnant). 2) Man has created all works of art on his own talent and free will from his observation of reality, and his notion of natural beauty can be explained as a remnant of evolutionary processes. 3) Therefore, a Goddess of beauty and arts cannot exist. Disproof is similar to the one for beauty and arts. Again, similar disproof. Note specifically that air can be explained by purely physical means, and there exists no life after death, disproving ghosts absolutely. In fact, the rest of the Gods are disproven similarly: The last God is an especially heinous notion, in my opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...