conan

Betsy, I don't mean to suggest that Objectivist are in total agreement on political issues. I was just curious as to what individual reponses might be. If I were to take a wild guess, I think Colin Powell might be a possible choice. I would have liked to see Alan Keyes in office. What do you think of him? conan

Of the politicians or persons who might consider the office of president, who would Objectivists most like to see run and possibly get elected?

Ash and Mr. Weiss, I really do understand and have no ill intentions. I have done some research, just not enough I guess. I trust that you kind people are secure in who you are, so I hope you don't mind me presenting questions/challeges when I encounter principles/teachings that are difficult to accept. sincerely, conan

Mr Weiss, I brought up abiogenesis because of this issue. http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/equilibrium03.html Also, most natural-evolutionists I talk to like to divroce evolution from abiogenesis. I really don't see how you can have naturalistic evolution with out it. But I can see why they want to shy away from it. Without disrupting the current context of this discussion, I was wondering if anyone would like to address Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover", since as I understand it Objectivists are sympathetic to Aristotle. http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm conan

Ash, Thanks for your advice. If I am welcomed, I will resume here at that time. Mr. Weiss, Your last post is tempting a great discussion, so what material should I read to best understand what you mean by "free will", "consciousness", etc.. We do seem to have some linguistic conflicts that causes the miscommunictaion, so I understand the need to research these topics before discussing them further in this forum. Thanks for your time and patience, conan

Adrian and Mr. Weiss, Thanks for your reply. You and Mr. Weiss are correct, I do not have a clear picture of what Ojectivism is claiming. Therefore, I will do my best to read up on what the core metaphysical beliefs of Objectivism are. I just have one question for Mr.Weiss: Merriam-Webster defines arbitrary as "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or ...(3b)" By definition you could have included abiogenesis in your list of "arbitrary" examples. Does it fit? Why or why not? sincerely, conan

To everyone: There has been alot of interesting and good comments. I don't have time to reply to every point/question at this time, but I will try to allude to some of them in my reply to Adrian. Ohters I will do by best to get back to. Adrain, The argument I presented is primarily philosophical, not theological. It is not until you get to point 7 that the theological questions arise. If you objection is simply with point 7, then the argument has done its job. If not, then you need to clarify the problem(s) you have with the first 6 points. I would be happy anwser your question in reguards to why I believe there is a creator, but topic here has to deal with the nature of the time/space continuim. Creation does however reasonbly follow the premise of a first cause, but to avoid categorical confusion we should stay with causality here. However, I would not mind addressing that question in another thread dedicated to that specific topic. The problem that Objectivism must confront is the impossibilty of proving a universal negative. It is impossible to prove that immaterial reality does not exist. That does not mean it does. But what it does mean is that materialism/atheism is purely presuppositional. Moreover, dogma is not a product of reason. If you claim to champion reason, then you have to be intellectually honest and simply say you do nto believe in immaterial reality, but it is in the realm of possibility. There are two possibilties here as one of your members has already pointed out. 1. The universe has no begining. 2. The universe has a begining (first cause). Once you assume either position, you then deal categorically with other possibilties. The former is not exclusively atheistic. A monist/deist can hold to an infinite universe. Ex nihilo does follow the latter and presents at least two views, Deism and Theism. And so on. But there is no categorical confusion on my end. Since you spoke at length on creation ex nihilo, I will touch briefly on the subject representing the Biblical worldview. God is before all things. He is the only being in existence whose reason for existing is within himself. The universe pre-existed in the mind of God much like a building in the mind of an architect. The universe became a physical reality at ex nihilo.To avoid categorical confusion theologically, another term for ex nihilo is "immediate creation" (something out of nothing). Creating from existing materials is "mediate creation". Unfathomable you say? No more unfathomable that a begining-less universe or abiogenesis. I find it interesting that one can scoff at the ressurection and so easily accept abiogenesis. Both are examples of non-living matter becoming living matter. The difference is that one is intended and the other is something called an accident. Also, there is nothing fathomable about history that has no begining, and most explicitly "meaningless". If any idea demonstrates meaninglessness, it is materialism. Which casues me to wonder why materialists are not all nihilist. conan

nimble, I notified an administrator. If I remember correctly, you may need to check your email to actually activate the membership. conan

Kevin, Thanks for your reply. What you are really saying is that matter is all that exist, which is what you are trying to prove in the first place. As I stated in my last post "To declare that ones beliefs/presuppositions is evidence of itself is circular." That does not mean you are wrong, only that your argument is invalid. I am not sure what to make of this. It does not make much sense. conan

Thanks everyone for your replies and livly discusssion. Exactly the point. To declare that ones beliefs/presuppositions is evidence of itself is circular. We can however, argue/debate the reasons why we hold the position we do. I believe Mr. Weiss asked what casued the first cause, but that is paradoxial. A first cause by definition would be uncaused and not require a cause because it is not an effect. In reguards to an infinite regress of causes, Dr. Norm Geisler addresses this fairly well with his "Existenial Argument" (a variation of the cosmological argument). 1.Things exist. 2. It is possible for those things to not exist. 3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. 4. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical. 5. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence. 6. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause. 7. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. The uncaused cause must be God. For the most part this argument hinges on point 5. I think this can best be understood by imaging a chian hanging before you with no visible begining. Because each link is dependant on the existence of another, one can reasonably assume that the chain must be attached somewhere down the line. It is reasonable to assume that there must be something that make the existence of the most recent link possible. This argument at least holds the possibility of justification. conan

http://www.theologyforums.com/forums/index.php?s= nimble, I don't know why you were not welcomed at the other forums, but the administrators and moderators are really good here. Objectivism has been on my list of things to investigate and learn about. I generally learn faster and retain information better in a forum type of setting than I do from reading alone. If nothing else, a sojourn at our forum might give you a better understanding of the nature of Christian theology and apologetics. sincerely, conan

Ash, I don't believe that is what I said. If you follow the discussion carefully you will see that I was at least attempting to make a point with Mr. Weiss. I am not extremely knowledgeable of the teachings of Ayn Rand/Ojectivism, that is why I am here. At this point I would conclude that Objectivism holds a materialistic metaphysic and probably denies the existence immaterial relalities.

nimble, Like I said, we have an apologetics section which breaks down into Philosophy, General Apologetics, Comparative Religion and two different types Origins. we would be glad to have you. conan

Mr. Weiss, I am not sure exactly what you mean. Maybe you could clarify a bit. You seem to be saying that presuppositions are inherently circular. At any rate, presuppositions are presupposition reguardless as to how one arrives at them. Also, Plato's metaphysics are almost identical to the metaphysical principals found in the bible. And as you stated, this was relective of the way reality actually was.

Hi Nate. Like Plato and Aristotle, we all reason from certian presuppositions we hold. The "School of Athens" fresco is probably a good picture of that. There would be nothing disctinctly Christian about reason. However, a mature Christian will reason from presuppositions that are biblical, or otherwise it would not be rightly called "Christian". I hope that answers your question. conan

Stephen, I agree that "time and causality are within the universe", but you cannot justify a begining-less universe based on a presuppositon you hold. First, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Secondly, what you really have is a circular argument because you are using the the thing you are trying to prove (the universe is all there is) as proof of the thing. Wathces are started (caused) and they can be stopped. So perhaps it is reasonable to consider the possibilty that there may be an infinite reality that is not a natural one. Time and causality are definately of the natural universe, but that in no way justifies an infinite regress of causes. conan

nimble, Which forum did you visit? I am a member of theology forums, but understand that all members are not Christians. That is why we have an apologetics section. There have been a number of atheistic and agnostic contributors, as well as religionists who are not sympathetic to Biblical Christianity. Nevertheless we welcome anyone who is willing to follow the forum rules. Many unbelievers are suprisingly frustrated when they arrive at the forums with the assumption that Christians cannot reason. After reading the comments here, perhaps some of you might like to pay a visit. Also, we have a formal debate forum (its been slow lately). Lastly, not everything labeled "Christian" really is. If an idea, teaching or expression is in clear conradiction with an inductive interpretation of scripture, it cannot logically be considered "Christian". Much of what people come into contact with today is likely a psuedo-christianity. conan

Perhaps I am resurrecting a dead horse here, but for those who assert the universe has no beginning, how do you justify an infinite regress of causes? conan

Hi Betsy, Thanks for you reply. From what I have been reading, this is a good summary for Objectivism. I like your roadmap anaology for it presents Objectivism as a useful tool for achieving a particular goal. However, there is a difference in reading a roadmap and driving on roads of reality. The "edicts" as you call them are like road signs you encounter on your journey. We can be navigating correctly, but if we ingnore signs such as "bridge out", "one way", "caution", etc..., the roadmap may no longer be an issue as other issues may complicate the journey. While I appreciate your reply, I feel like my question has been avoided. Perhaps you might deal specifically with the hypothetical I mentioned. I would like to see the roadmap principles for making a moral decision (i.e. adultery). I find it hard (perhaps immpossible) to believe that we can have "rock solid" ethics without a standard of right and wrong. Also, "never initiating force" sounds alot like an edict or a rule. How is this different that what other systems offer? What exactly distinguishes Objectivism from say Egoism or Epicureanism? Anyway, I think your position on religion and rules is a bit of a sweeping generalization. In many cases (religions) you may be right, but that is not an accurate summary of what Biblical Christianity is. Anyone who joins a church, or practices "religious christianity" becuase he/she wants someone to think for him/her, is misguided. Being a Christian is living a transformed life as a result of having recieved Christ. The law (edicts) are wriiten on your mind and heart. You keep them becuase you want to, not becuase your trying to follow a rulebook. Thanks again for the dialogue. conan

Betsy, Thanks for your reply and for clarifying the statement. I am simply here to explore and understand this philosophy and examine what practical values it has and possibly does not have. I hope that is okay. However, I think I failed to communicate my question to you clearly. Allow me to try again in more detail. You stated:"Actually, Objectivism doesn't have "edicts" -- especially when it comes to ethics. Ayn Rand presents facts, reasoning, conclusions, observations, recommendations, identifications, etc., but not edicts." As one who is not famaliar with the various positions Objectivism might take on a number of issues, I would take the following statement(s) as a license to commit adultery (or other such transgressions). Therefore if the act is commited by two consenting persons whom observe the act to be safe and harmless (no one would ever know), it seems that this would be a case of "I want an erotic experience, so I must commit this act". I am assuming that since Objectivism cannot address such an issue specifically (having no edict), the decision is simply a matter of individual judgement. This of course may have a number of different outcomes and consequences that could not be forseen by an infinite being. So my question is simply this. Can the philosophy of Objectivism tell me if something like adultery is a good or bad decision given the hypothetical I am offering? Or is it always left to an individual's ability to make these decisions based on his/her limited knowledge of possible outcomes? sincerely, conan

Betsy, I would like you to expand a bit. Take "thou shall not commit adultery" vs. "I want to commit adultery, so I must". thanks, conan