Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Big B

Regulars
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    Brian

Big B's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. It's not a contradiction. I take formless to simply mean without form, not that the substance to create it doesn't exist. Even in a purely naturalistic universe the earth was "formless" at one point. In that formless state you couldn't really call it "the earth", but "was" is referring to it's non-state in -past- tense, the concept of "the earth" was formless at one point. Not that the earth itself was formless.
  2. A lot of altruistic perspectives require you to de-value yourself in relation to others and to place their lives as more important than your own. Ask him what cause is served by this perspective. Present him with this scenario: Lets say he lives in a community where everyone is 100%, irrationally selfish. They care nothing for their neighbors and will destroy all who get in their way in order to satisfy their short term, violent whims. Now, in this situation, would he not be required by his own principles to sacrifice himself immediately to one of these irrational violent whims of someone in the community in order to give them what they wanted? In this case, he would be perpetuating a violent, irrational world full of destruction, and his supposedly noble altruistic nature becomes fuel for the fire of destruction and selfishness thus supporting the very evil his self-sacrificing nature is supposed to defeat. If -everyone- in a community was 100% self sacrificial, and never took advantage of the system, they would all be soulless animals. They'd have no desire to better their own situation because that would constitute taking something for themselves something that their neighbor could have, thus people would end up all dying. But not because they loved their neighbor, but rather because the despised themselves. He'll probably say this isn't really the case with his mentality, as that is extreme and doesn't really reflect what he thinks. I would then add that as opposed to the community of irrationally selfish barbarians, a community full of people of rational self interest creates a place where everyone is better off both economically and spiritually. If you take care of yourself, and the people you love, that same principle is expected of others, that they take care of themselves and the ones they love. Any help from someone is never required of that person, thus any help that is given is -real-, and not artificial help with strings attached. In a rationally selfish community, people don't do each other favors with an expectation that that person will give them a favor later. The payback for helping others should be contained within the specific act of helping the, and the benefit you could receive from it. You need to make the point that mindless self-sacrifice doesn't actually solve the problem of irrational selfishness, it perpetuates it.
  3. 10: Most people direct their anger at humanity at God. I don't really understand your point. 9: Where and what? And how is your claim any different? 8: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made" One can either take this perspective, or the perspective that thinks that the more we understand about creation, the less likely there could be a creator, which makes absolutely no sense. When you come across an object like a car, the fact that you can understand it's inner workings doesn't make it less likely that was designed. Or you could take the objectivist stance that "God doesn't exist because I say so." 7: ? 6: IDK where you are getting this list from because that is not how i feel about evolution. Besides, the bible even clearly states this when God created the animals: "Let the earth bring forth life." This seems to indicate that he created the necessary forces that would facilitate what we observe as biological evolution. Evolution does not contradict God unless you want it to, or maybe you believe God would have created things "magically" and left the universe unable to be scientifically validatable which is entirely an assumption that has no basis in reality. 5: I assume you mean the chances of everything happening with no direct cause are still a higher probability than a creator. I'd like to see your reasoning other than how you feel. In other words, why is it more likely to assume a natural explanation rather than a designed one? Why is a natural explanation more scientific than a designed one anyways? Saying a designed universe is un-scientific and mystical is like saying all mankind achieves is un-scientific and mystical. And don't retort with, "Whoa I can't even begin to explain why this is stupid," Please refute it with a respectful manner. And "because we haven't proven a creator exists, it's unscientific to think that there is one" is lazy thinking. It might be "unscientific", but so is everything before it is discovered/proven. And before you even consider saying the "God did it" mentality is lazy thinking as a refute for my point, realize that I completely agree with that. I despise people that use God as an excuse to disregard scientific discovery. Because the truth of the matter is that the existence of God doesn't effect how we should go about learning about creation. Only people who force themselves into a state of ignorance think they are at odds with each other. And you say that I force myself into a state of ignorance because I acknowledge the possibility that God might exist? I've clearly shown that the existence of God doesn't impede scientific progress unless people choose to stop learning and just say "God did it." Yes people do that, but I AM NOT one of those people. 4: ? 3: What? 2: ? 1: Well without a consciousness to observe creation, there's no real context for it's existence other than itself. It exists, but without a consciousness no one is around to say "A is A"...but I'm really not sure what your this point is trying to achieve. EDIT: My apologies mynameisyang, I hadn't read the earlier pages in this thread so I didn't know that you were referring to a previous post here . My understanding of the story of creation isn't that God created something from nothing. The first statement of most translations does state"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," but this doesn't necessitate a "something from nothing" interpretation. The very next phrase is : "Now the earth was formless and empty" Which could mean that there was some kind of form to the physical universe that existed parallel with God.
  4. Any and -all- creative endeavors that exist. I write music, some of which pretty much involves closing my eyes and seeing what pops up. Also as far as I can remember, the way ideas even occur is either from A) Observing reality, or Discussing some concept of some kind. Now in the example of B, you'd be inclined to say that even concepts that I discuss are only a product of observing reality. Now, this is true, our basis for thought is only given context by the reality that we perceive. It is the interpretation of these perceptions where you and I would differ. Any examples I listed as being "evidence" for why I hold the conviction that God exists, you wouldn't see as valid as they could also be attributed to the result of simple cause and effect, a possibility that I do not disregard. Therefore I suggest we discontinue this discussion and move on .
  5. I'm getting the responses I expected, not that it hasn't been interesting, I think this has been a great discussion. My goal wasn't to prove the existence of God, but to logically demonstrate the idea that if God existed, he would be a rational being. I fully realize that objectivism doesn't allow for the discussion of any sort of conclusions being drawn before all premises are proven to exist, however, there are many things that existed outside the realms of our understanding that were only discovered long after most dismissed it as being impossible. The course of human history and invention is proof of this. I realize that talking about properties and characteristics of a hypothetical object(a circle that could be a square..ect.) doesn't fit within objectivism. But still, my premise for the entire discussion is that we exist as we do today in an objective reality. And from this I drew conclusions about the only type of God that could exist, if he exists. Pointless discussion in terms of results? I guess so, but I had fun. So it's all good as far as I see it .
  6. ahahahah...Substituting how I describe God's personality/nature is not the same thing as a justification for his existence. I never made the point that because the universe is rational, that it must have a rational creator. This of course would lead to the can of worms argument way of thinking. I always stated that IF God existed, then his nature would be that of a rational being. One is an assumption about the inevitability of God's existence as a result of observing the universe(not the point i made at all.) The other, the actual point I made, is an if-then statement. However, Jake made this point: "You can't use the premise "if God so happens to exist", to reach the "reasonable conclusion" that God is intelligent. "God might exist" requires evidence you have not presented. " I smell the objectivism, but I don't fully agree with this line of thinking simply because I heavily enjoy thinking of what -could- be. It leads to interesting discussions and many times, in group format, can lead to an entirely new idea. It's something I and my friends enjoy doing, and it's one reason why I love Ayn Rand's work so much is because it provides such a solid, fresh approach towards new discussions. I agree that there is a key point that I am lacking in my proof that God exists, but that wasn't really my goal here. But if all ideas were dismissed before they were completed, what kind of world would we live in?
  7. This discussion has been great... I have defined what I view God as, but I suppose I'll make it more blatant. I define God as a rational being of the highest intelligence and ability. When I look at creation, I cannot help but be amazed at what is around me, just the magnitude of existence is wonderful to behold. And then even more amazing is the fact that within this creation we've the capacity to create entirely new things that don't exist by default. When it is said that we are "made in the image of God", I take that to mean that we are given the capacity to think freely, and to create things. " Really? After everything i've said...Okay, I'm sorry I really just must not be communicating my point. I look at the universe as being a place of order. Matter behaves consistently, and we can interact with that matter in what seems to be a logical manner. Picking up a rock and thinking that it is a flower doesn't make it a flower. A is A. This is the kind of universe we live in, correct? Now, if it so happens that God exists and designed everything, then I find it reasonable to conclude that he is an extremely rational being. That's what I've been saying from the start. I can't really think of another way to rephrase it. I wouldn't keep restating it, but it just seems like you're arguing against points that I'm not intending to make. My premise is that we exist as we do today, as in A is A. Reality is how it is...right now. Not a future reality to be shaped by a new set of variables, but today's reality. So regardless of if God exists and created it, this is how things are. I'm not dealing with a hypothetical reality. Thats what I mean when I say nothing would change. The only variable here is whether or not the universe was designed and created, or evolved naturally.
  8. This is the core of this entire issue, those are the common definitions of God. But where does that "common definition" originate from, a mysterious collective? I don't hold this viewpoint of God at all. I don't claim God's existence as being above reason and logic. If I were supporting the notion that God's existence was above reason and logic, then I can understanding dismissing His existence on the grounds of an objectivist philosophy. Again, all you seem to be using as a basis for dismissing God is that you perceive him as being outside the realm of reality. Which, if God exists, He exists within reality. If He doesn't exist, then He doesn't in any reality. I must be mis-communicating somehow. My point is that the universe is comprised of observable, explainable structures. IF God created the Universe, then it stands to reason that God himself is rational as he is the one that created things -with- that observable explainable structure. I'm not debating the method by which a universe would "evolve" with or without the presence of a creator. If God created things, what reason would he have to create things "supernaturally" instead of naturally? In other words, why wouldn't things look and be as they are today given the existence and function of God as the creator and designer? If God existed, what would we see change? The answer is: nothing. So is belief in God pointless? It is then equally as pointless then as unbelief in God, if it has no effect on how we perceive reality which is the basis for objectivism. This doesn't speak to me of a rational vs irrational issue. More of a, do you prefer chicken, or pork? Of course! By what standard is it irrational to "even think" about a god? The only conclusion that I am able to come to is that God exists, or doesn't exist. Not simply: God doesn't exist. My base point is this: IF God exists, and has created everything, then he IS a rational being that is WITHIN reality, and GIVEN THOSE CONDITIONS a conviction that God exists is NOT irrational! Things as they are right now could not have been designed by an irrational being! Rational thought would not be possible within a designed universe if the designer were not rational because there would be no rational order to perceive to give context to our own existence. Therefore, if God exists, then he is rational. This is your: God doesn't exist. With no further examples or logic other than objectivism says so? And because some people somewhere claim that God is above logic and reason therefore the true nature of God must be that and therefore can't exist?
  9. My searching has been mostly non-conclusive, both within this forum and on google. Sure, there are topics that talk "about God", but I haven't been able to find one that talks directly about the points that I have in a forum environment which is why I created a new topic, for a new discussion. I figured this forum would be the best place to start this because I believe objectivists to be the only group of people capable of such a discussion. For example, I found a person whose post contained this: "They believe that without God, Life is meaningless. The universe is incomprehensible. There is no morality by which we can live. We can never be certain of the truth." I read those statements and I find I don't agree with a single one of them. In fact my entire existence is proof that those statements are invalid. My entire world view wholely rejects those things that he has ascribed to those that believe in God. Another example I found: "Many people subscribe to the view that science and religion do not conflict because they deal with different areas of knowledge." I am not one of those many people.
  10. I really would appreciate an open discussion on this topic. Even if it is a discussion you feel you've had 1000 times before, I've met very few people who see that science and reason, and God are not mutually exclusive. I've looked at multiple reasons people use to dismiss God, and nearly all of them operate on the premise that they imagine God as being irrational, and because rationality exists, God can't exist. I personally hold the conviction that God exists, but I won't hesitate to declare the possibility of his non-existence.
  11. This article assumes a vast amount about the relationship of the mind(soul) and the body. It supports itself logically, but that alone isn't enough to objectively prove a premise! Our body might just be one of many mechanisms that our soul could conceivably use to interact with a reality. Notice that I said a reality, not a super-natural reality, just "a reality." There is nothing that exists which doesn't exist, and there are things that exist that are beyond our current means of perception. I suppose you could make the point that religious people assume too much about the nature of reality beyond our current understandings of things, but you can't say that -deciding- that there can't be another form of reality is any less of an intellectual error. The example it gives about dying is refuted by Zsrenson when he said this: "All this argument proves is that the 'spiritual mind' cannot exist in the 'physical' world when its physical home, the brain, ceases to function." And about alcohol effecting our conscious state. Alcohal, and psychoactive drugs alter our means of perception of reality, but not reality itself. Our consciousness/soul could be a separate entity from our body, thus being it's own reality in a sense. Another way to look at it is this: are the chemical reactions in the brain a physical manifestation of conscious thought, or does conscious thought and perception arise from chemical reactions in the brain? It's an interesting conceptual discussion, but only time and advancement into science will be able to reveal the truth.
  12. *** Mod's note: Merged topic. sN *** If we exist as we do today, and reality is an objective truth, then the existence or non-existence of God has zero impact on the order of the universe and our ability to perceive it as having scientific, rational explanations of function. If God exists as the highest form of structure in the universe, is it logical to assume that he is irrational? If the consciousness that coded all the physical properties of matter was irrational, from where did order arise? From where did rational thought originate? We observe in nature events so tiny and fast they exist on an almost imperceivable scale, and yet the specific and variable rhythm and form of these tiny events are the building blocks that combine to create the physical world we perceive. Even our perceptions are based on a structure of order, and function. Even supposedly chaotic events, when broken down have mathematical/scientific explanations that describe the fundamental forces in them. Obviously, as time has gone on we've refined our ability to observe the inner workings of the universe. A being that hurls lightning from the tops of clouds is not a better explanation than the static discharge of particles. But this doesn't mean that a being of God's description couldn't have created a "code of reality" that made particles react to situations dynamically to achieve a repeatable, scientific result under specified conditions. All this means is that a "magical" explanation of lightning's existence is not accurate. It is a logical fallacy to dismiss the existence of God based on the premise that if God were to exist, things would not have a rational/scientific explanation. It is a fundamental flaw of reason to dismiss the existence of God simply because you imagine him as an irrational being incapable of creating a scientifically validatable universe. If you disagree with this, then ask yourself these questions: Does the architect cease to exist once his buildings are erected? Or is it an extension of his being? Does the inventor of a motor become an irrational whim simply because his motor is being used by others? Or is he upheld with honor? Does a composer become a mystical collective entity once his composition is performed for an audience? Or is his creativity admired?
  13. My name is Brian, and I've recently become quite enthused with Objectivism. My introduction to it started with Atlas Shrugged, followed by the Fountainhead, and I am currently working my way through several of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works. The more I learn the more I find it to be consistent with my pre-existing convictions, only now I have a far sturdier foundation on which to stand when it comes to facing collectivists and their un-morality. Eh, I'm sure the rest of my life story will come out in some form or another as time goes on here .
×
×
  • Create New...