Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jacob86

Regulars
  • Content Count

    554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Jacob86 last won the day on June 28 2011

Jacob86 had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About Jacob86

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Jacob Tyler Brunton
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.facebook.com/TheChristianEgoist

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Philosophy, Theology, Politics, Art, History, Psychology
  1. What exactly are you "hmmm"-ing? In the quote, I am not claiming that contradictions are possible, I am restating, in question form, what seems to be the Objectivist position (or at least the position of whoever I was arguing with at the time). I was *asking* if that was the position of my opponent based on the preceding conversation.
  2. Kantian Christianity ("Kantianity"), i.e., the anti-intellectual, faith-based, altruistic, humility mongering, Scriptural cherry-picking Christianity of the modern west is certainly not compatible with Objectivism...or reason...or life...or Capitalism...or Christ. But true Christianity is absolutely (and exclusively) compatible with reason and life and Capitalism and the good (i.e. rational) parts of Objectivism. Similarly, only parts of Objectivism are compatible with true Christianity. The irrational parts of Objectivism (those parts which stem from defunct epistemological assumptio
  3. Could explain a bit more about what you mean by "strict identity"? The question is this though: do the similarities still exist even apart from the functioning of a conceptual faculty? Does the conceptual faculty CREATE or DISCOVER the similarity? If it creates the similarity, we have nominalism and subjectivism. If it discovers the similarity then we have some form of realism and objectivism. I say that this second (discovery of the similarities) is a form of realism because it insists that the similarities are real - that they are metaphysically real. The reason that I see
  4. Plasmatic, if I understand the above correctly, it is similar to what I have been saying regarding this issue. If universals have actual referents in the real world (to avoid subjectivism/nominalism) then some form of realism is true - we need not know the details about which form is true in order to know that some form is. Plato could have been wrong about the nature of the universals (an ideal cat in heaven) as well as how we come to know them (from a past life), without being wrong about the fact that they must exist in order for objective truth to be possible. I don't know why it is
  5. For those who were curious above, I just recently (this morning) discovered Scott Ryan's book and, out of curiousity, searched on here to see if anyone had addressed it. I've only read small excerpts of the Amazon preview thus far, but will likely purchase it in order to study it more in depth. He does seem to be saying much of what I would say in regard to epistemology (which is semi-exciting), but his form of "theism" (panentheism) and his inability to value those aspects of Rand's thought that are extremely and uniquely valuable is quite off-putting. I'm glad you all thought of me t
  6. Well, whether it's a product of "being sapient" or not is sort of irrelevant. The relevant question is this: Is it TRUE or not? And on what grounds? Atheists (obviously) say that it is not true, and they base that on certain grounds, some of which are "logical arguments against the existence of God" or instances in which they claim that the concept of God violates the Law of Identity. The purpose of this thread is to discuss those particular arguments/claims. Would you like to contribute to that?
  7. Ummm, not to interrupt or anything but how the discussion in the last 8-10 posts relevant to the topic of the thread....?
  8. The way that I am using it, "logical necessity" does not mean "no logical alternatives currently exist". Rather, it means "the only possible alternative is self-contradictory". When there are only two alternatives (A or ~A), if one of those is contradictory, then the other is necessarily true. That is what I mean by logical necessity. With that explanation, would you still reject an argument from logical necessity (the way that I mean it here)? This equates "what we've experienced" with "all that is logically possible". Remember, I'm not really making a positive argument for an
  9. Except the means which you propose above ("one only need look out to reality and see possibility after possibility") would *only* supply you with information concerning that which has/is happening. It can tell you nothing about what could/will happen. As an example: 2,000 years ago, based on what was seen, men considered it "impossible" that Man could fly to the moon. They were right, in a sense; they were right that at that time and in that context, it was impossible. However, that type of possibility/impossibility must be distinguished from the logical possibility/impossibility because apa
  10. The "theme" of this particular thread is logical arguments against the existence of God. As a Theist, therefore, I am simply focusing on the refutation of any possible logical arguments against the existence of God in this thread. I do have positive arguments for the existence of God (mostly expounded in the "Argument for the Existence of God" thread), but I have intentionally tried to keep positive arguments to a minimum in this thread in order to stay on topic. I am also very happy to discuss positive argument for God over email, etc.. with any individual who would like more clarifying discu
  11. This is where I think the disconnect is. I'm saying that the method, itself, ALSO requires validation. So Objectivists say that perception (the directly observable) is the ultimate form of validation and that logic is the process or method used in this validation. Now, take that principle and treat it like any other proposition. Try to validate, by perception, the proposition that "logic is the proper method" for validation. OR, try to validate, by perception, that "perception is the ultimate means of validation". What I'm saying is that the basic Objectivist Epistemological law violates
  12. I think that's a good idea... however I'm not sure which part you're wanting elaboration on. haha. So, I'm going to try and elaborate generally and if you'd like more specificity, please let me know. My position (and the position of MUCH of philosophical Theism throughout the centuries -- especially pre-Kant) is that God cannot (and would not want to!) make "A = ~A"... He cannot commit contradictions. If He has performed any miracles, they are not contradictions because contradictions are inherently impossible - not just "impossible for US as humans", but impossible in and of themselves.
  13. Why is that?? If I may pre-empt your answer (for the sake of saving us both time), its because to you "God-creator" means "creator of all existence -- including HIM if He exists". I don't know how many times I have to say that that is a straw man. Maybe this time it will stick though... God created ALL OTHER EXISTENTS. He EXISTS (and is therefore "part" of existence) and created ALL OTHER existents -- all existents which are not Himself. If that's unclear, please ask clarifying questions so I can try and make it more clear... if possible. He absolutely must "obey" the laws of ident
  14. Who ever said anything about thinking "on His level"? You don't need to think on some mystical "higher level" in order to see that what He does is logical - you simply need to better understand what logic IS and what it ISN'T... and then understand what God has done and what He hasn't. In other words, be able to distinguish between contradictions and anomalies, and be able to distinguish between legitimate philosophical theism and strawmen. It actually follows very certainly, but that's a topic for a different thread (perhaps "Argument for the Existence of God" and I am currently writ
  15. I completely agree - as do the majority of serious philosophical theologians. The "theist" who holds that God transcends existence (i.e. doesn't exist) is largely a strawman.
×
×
  • Create New...