Jacob86

"There is action" is perceivable. Did you miss that part of my argument? Again, my argument is "theoretically validated" like justice, but ultimately reliant on perceivable elements of nature (like justice): 1) There is action and all action is either reactionary or volitional. Are you saying that I just don't have ENOUGH percepts? Does a particular argument need to have a certain ration of percepts crammed into it in order for it to be valid? Or perhaps you disagree with these perceptual observations used in my argument? Please explain why. Or, perhaps you disagree with the logical ("theoretical") connections in my argument? Please explain why. Please do SOMETHING other than repetitively accuse me of being arbitrary without demonstrating HOW my argument is arbitrary.

I did not say that the primacy of existence was assumed. I said that "the physical universe" being used interchangeably with "existence as such" is assumed. And I never said it could. Again, you MISUNDERSTAND my position. I do not hold that God is purely consciousness. I hold that God EXISTS and that He is conscious. This in no way implies that consciousness preceeds existence. It does imply that an EXISTENT which is conscious preceded the existence of OTHER existents but this does not violate the primacy of existence in any form. Is THIS why you think that my claim cannot be validated? Because you THINK it violates the primacy of existence??? And if so, why didn't you just say so?

(*I'm not sure what happened, but this was supposed to be a response to Xall's post#684*) Please see post #184: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20028&view=findpost&p=265148 I do not question the axiom of existence. I am not challenging that existence as such is eternal and invincible. I am simply challenging the idea that the physical universe is existence as such. Objectivists assume that the physical universe is existence as such and I am arguing that such an assumption is illogical.

So to be clear, you agree that there are two possible types of "action" here?: 1)Volitional action which is not influenced by the actions of other entities 2)Reactions which are influenced by the actions of other entities (*By "influenced" here, I mean "influenced in a sufficient way as to explain the action". I don't mean that volitional choices are not influenced by the rest of reality, but the influence of other entities is able to be "risen above" by volition.) Do you agree with this? No. We also both agree that Existence as such has always existed (that's part of the axiom). You could say that it has led indirectly to the question "which particular existent(s) have always existed?". But even that is an indirect question. The question which has arisen in this conversation by my argument is "how is there action among entities?". Agreed! But remember that when you say "existence" here, you are referring to existence as such. And existence necessarily implies one or more existents. Therefore, if existence as such has always existed, then there must be one or more existents which have always existed. There must be one or more existents for which there is not prior explanation for their existence. How does the eternality of existence as such lead to the plausibility of eternal non-volitional motion?? No. I am simply analyzing the plain meaning of the law of identity in relation to entities and their actions. Since an entity can only act according to its nature, an entity either acts (by nature) as a reaction to the action of another entity OR an entity acts (by nature) volitionally. If all entities in the past were of the first nature (reactionary), then there would be no action at all since all reactions demand a prior action which itself was either reactionary or volitional. But, if there is no volitional entity, then there is no beginning to action and therefore no reactions. You are the one supposing something fantastic- namely that it is possible for a series without a beginning to exist. If a series does not begin, then it does not exist. You are supposing that it is possible for a non-existent series to exist. Again, if you disagree with me about there being a volitional entity which is the source of all action, then it seems that you only have two options: 1)Suppose that it is possible that some entity at some point acted against its nature (Deny A is A). 2)Suppose that action is only an illusion and that no action actually exists and that everything has always and will always actually be static (like in the "fantastic" scenario which you accuse me of).

Tell me, have I said something of the equivalent to "Hey, it'd be cool if God was responsible for other existents!"?? Or, am I making arguments that that is the case? If the latter; if I am making arguments (which I am), then I am spelling out REASONS to believe this claim. If my REASONS are illogical or flawed in some way, fine. Point it out! lol. But DO NOT accuse me of not having any reasons behind my claim. You can accuse me of having flawed reasoning (and then proceed to BACK UP your claim that my reasoning is flawed), but do not pretend that I have presented no reasoning when I have. This is VERY rude.

Yes, the claim is arbitrary because you have no reason at all to believe that leprechauns are responsible for your missing clothes. All you know is that your clothes are missing, but this in no way (either empirically or logically) leads to the necessity of theorizing leprechauns. Please see the above post where I described my "Epistemological Courtroom" with the 3 categories. The 2nd category was "arbitrary" and it was a claim which is logically possible (i.e. not contradictory) but for which there is no reason (whether empirical or logical) to believe that it could be valid. This is my definition of "arbitrary"...and Greebo seems to have agreed with it. You have NO reason to theorize leprechauns. I am spelling out reasons to theorize the existence of God. If you disagree with the reasons, then you need to address the points of disagreement. If, in fact, I had NO reasons for such a theory, then my theory would be arbitrary. But, I am not doing "God of the gaps" arguments here. I am arguing that a non-theistic approach to these issues is illogical. Now, concerning your demand for a "connection to reality" or "ability to be reduced to the perceptual level", I really need to know what you mean and what you do not mean. If you mean these epistemological standards in the way I think you mean them, then your epistemology would make it impossible to know anything apart from immediate and direct percepts (IF you were actually consistent with it). However, I could misunderstand what you mean by these epistemological standards, so I am asking you to spell out your meaning for me. Why is it that you consider leprechauns and my argument for God to be in the same category of arbitrary, but you consider other non-perceptual truths (the universal application of the Law of Identity, Justice, Free-will, etc..) to be non-arbitrary??

I appreciate the responses. I will need to do some more research based on some of the sources offered and mentioned here...and if after reviewing the already existent threads on these issues, I still have more questions/comments on the issue, I will bring it back up. Thank you.

I'm assuming that you are including my position as a "contradictory" answer?? Or, are you saying that they only other non-contradictory option is the one you are proposing? If you are counting my position as "contradictory", could you point out the contradictions? And it is true that the existence of living entities (alien life form/whatever) could explain action..to a degree. However, unless these living entities owe their existence to nothing outside of themselves (meaning, unless they are eternal), then they require some prior action which brought them into existence and so you have the same problem; instead of it being humans, it's aliens- but the problem has not gone away. Could you give an argument to support the assertion that a "first cause"/"first actor" is not necessary? And if it is necessary, wouldn't the following required implication no longer be "arbitrary"? Why do you say on one hand that "it requires arbitrary assertions" and on the other hand say that these assertions "in no way could follow from a first actor"?? Which is it? Does the postulation of a first actor require these assertions/implications? OR, is it that Such assertions/implications could never follow from a first actor in any way? If they are "required" then they do follow. If they could never follow in any way, then they are not required. If you have a different premise which is not contradictory or evasive, I'd love to hear it.

But it seems that you are arguing that it is possible for an entity which by nature is incapable of acting of its own accord (i.e. a non-volitional entity) to act (not REact) against its nature... Yes, it would imply that, but that is not the point of the argument. If you disagree with a point in the argument, please spell out WHY you do... give reasons to show that my reasoning is false.

No. If an entity acts as a result of the influence of the action of other entities on or around it (meaning if it is REacting), then the action is not and should not be considered volitional. But, IF the action of an entity is not influence at all in any way by the action of other entities on or around it, then the action should be considered volitional. This seems rather plain. If you disagree, please spell out reasons why you disagree so that I know that your assertion that its possible for entities to act (not REact) non-volitionally is not arbitrary.

An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature. If an entity acts it is either volitionally (of its own accord) or it is as a reaction to prior action. If you wish to submit a third possibility, then please do so. But make sure that this possibility is not "arbitrary".

Are you suggesting the the action of electrons is not in any way a reaction to other particles? That the actions of electrons are entirely un-influenced by the other actions in the rest of reality?

I don't recall any objections against my reasoning/premises on your part other than the assertion that my claims are "arbitrary". Concerning the leprechauns, do you have any reason at all to believe that it is leprechauns stealing your clothes rather than you simply losing/misplacing them?? It seems in addition to the leprechauns being "possible" there are a wide variety of other possibilities which are much more plausible. Concerning my argument for God, if you see other possible explanations which are more plausible, please submit them. But remember, I am arguing that any and all other options are NOT possible because they are illogical. You are missing the force of my argument. I am not suggesting God as an explanation the ways you are suggesting leprechauns. I am arguing that any position which denies God must be illogical/ inconsistent/ irrational...and therefore automatically false. SO, if you see a problem in my reasoning, that is what needs to be addressed.

You submitted objections to parts of my reasoning which I responded to. Then, everyone focused on the invalidity of my concept of "creation" (which was dependent upon prior premises). My point is that if there is a disagreement with my premises/reasoning, then THAT is what needs to be addressed and debated...rather than the validity of a small piece of my conclusion (the concept of creation).

Ok. As a recap, the beginning of the argument is a quote from Galt: "an entity cannot act but in accordance with its nature" My conclusion from that is "if there is action there must be an entity which by nature can act of its own accord (volitionally)". This is what you are taking issue with. But I would like for you to show how disagreeing with this does not contradict the statement made by Galt. An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature. If there is action, there is an entity which by nature can act of its own accord. If such an entity does not exist, there could be no action. It seems that you must either reject Galts statement here OR you must reject that there is action. OR, you must demonstrate how there could be any action at all apart from an entity which by nature can act (not REact, but ACT). All three options seem rather impossible and illogical. Its pretty straight forward. It actually doesn't even bring up the issue of infinity (on purpose). It doesn't need to. Bringing up the "possibility" of an infinite chain into the past is only an attempt to push the problem away. However, for your sake, I will demonstrate quickly why the hope in an "infinite chain" is illogical. The idea of an "infinite chain" in this case is usually called an "infinite regress". A regress is a series going back into the past. An infinite regress is supposed to refer to a series going back into the past forever. A series, though, must have a beginning. An "infinite series" would have no beginning. If a series does not begin, then it does not exist. Therefore an "infinite regress" is a "series which does not exist". To say that an infinite regress exists is to say that a non-existent series exists. It is a contradiction. This is taken from my recent post in the "Infinite Quantity" thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20058&pid=266934&st=120&#entry266934 Yes but "action" necessarily implies an "actor"/entity. If there is not an entity with a sufficient nature to explain this action and energy, then there would be no action or energy.

Ok. So, you problem with my position is NOT that it is arbitrary (that I am making a claim with NO supporting reason to believe that the claim is valid). Rather, your problem with my position is that you do not agree with my reasoning for the claim. HUGE difference. And I would really appreciate it if everyone would try to grasp the difference. IF I make a claim without any supporting reasons for the claim, by all means denounce it as "arbitrary" and compare it to "leprechauns and unicorns". However, if I make a claim with supporting reasons but you disagree with my reasoning, please point out exactly where you disagree with the reasoning RATHER than saying "it's arbitrary" as if my position has no reasoning behind it. It seems that you are saying here that your objections to my reasoning are summed up in Dante's recent post, so I will reply to him rather than both in order to avoid redundancy.

My "connection with reality" is that there is action. If you think that my logical argument from this is similar to your argument for leprechauns based upon missing clothes, please point out my logical fallacies or the point at which my logical argument breaks down. Remember, I am claiming that your view (Atheism) fits in the FIRST category (illogical/self-contradictory)... unless you have a valid objection against my argument, you are the one with invalidated beliefs. I am saying "Atheism is illogical, and therefore Theism must be accepted- and Theism implies the need for a new concept of creation". It seems the only objection to my argument is "but theres no empirical reason to accept this new concept" while blanking out the fact that I am arguing that Atheism is irrational. This is NOT a very strong objection by any means. It may be a difficulty in understanding the implications of my position- but unless it deals with the more foundational argument, it is not a valid objection against my position.

Yes. The "but" was meant to contrast the 3rd category with the 2nd. Sorry- I didn't make that very clear. Ok. And could you tell me specifically which of my claims you would consider to be in the "arbitrary" category? -That there is a God? -That God could "create" in the way that I mean it? And could you explain why any of the reasons which I have given for these claims is insufficient to bring it out of the "arbitrary" category?? Remember; I'm not here saying "Hey, it be cool to think about there being a God!". I am making an argument (spelling out reasons) to believe that there is a God...

Ok, I think I understand the collective objections against my formation of the concept in question (i.e. the ability of God to bring into existence that which was not already existent). It seems that everyone is basically saying "there is no reason to believe that such a concept is valid". Is this correct? I would like briefly explain my "Epistemological Court-Room" and see where exactly there are any disagreements (if any). In my Epistemological Court Room, there are a few different categories: 1) A claim which is illogical/self-contradictory: Such a claim is not only "dismissed", but is ruled against- meaning that no further evidence should be pursued in order to back up the claim since the claim can not ever possibly be true. 2) A claim which is "logical" (non-contradictory) but for which there is no reason (whether logical or empirical) to believe that it is true: I believe this is what you are calling "arbitrary". Such a claim is dismissed and the pursuit of evidence is highly discouraged as a massive waste of time. This seems to be where the "leprechauns in the closet" and "unicorns", etc.. belong. 3) A claim which is logical (non-contradictory) but for which there is reason (whether logical or empirical or both) to believe that it could be true: I believe this is what you are calling "plausible". The amount of supporting reason for the claim could be great or small and the pursuit of further evidence should be based on the degree of probability (which is determined by the amount of supporting reason). To make sure I understand everyone accurately: 1) Would anyone like to make any important changes to the categories above? Or does this accurately represent your Epistemological Court Room as well?? 2) It seems that you are suggesting that my claims fit into the 2nd category as logically possible but with no reason to believe that they could be valid...and therefore arbitrary. Is this correct?

So, your argument basically amounts to "We've never seen or experienced anything like this and therefor it is not true"?? This is not meant as ad hominem...only an attempt to summarize the plain meaning of your argument.

See my most recent response to Greebo. I thought I had made it obvious that I was using the term "create" in a very different respect than to "re-arrange existent material". If you wish to make the term "create" limited to this (rearranging already existent material), that's fine. We just need a new term to designate the concept of "bringing previously non-existent things into existence". "Create" is just the closest word I can think of. But as I said. Even if we use the same term, it is obviously not a contradiction because it is obviously being used in different respects.

Could you elaborate on how and why you hold that "to create something out of nothing is to violate the law of identity"? Unless your meaning is the following: It seems that you might be saying that it is a contradiction because of the definition of the word "create". Your concept/definition of "creation" necessarily implies already existent material to work with. And therefore the "creation" of non-existent material is a contradiction. Is this an accurate summary of your position here?? If so, I think it misses the point. If you want to contend that the concept "creation" be limited to mean working on pre-existent material, I suppose that's fine. This just means that we need a different word to signify the concept of "bringing previously non-existent things into existence". I was calling it "creation" and trying to make clear that I meant it in a different way than you meant it. But if you would rather use a different term, that's fine. Regardless, since it is being used in radically different respects, it is not a contradiction. I think that my above comments clear this up. If not, let me know.

"logic exists" is not an axiom. But "A is A" is an axiom. And "A is not non-A" is a corollary of this axiom. And Rand's definition of "Logic" is "Non-contradictory identification" which is a short way of saying "application of these two laws of logic". So in THAT way, I believe that "logic" is axiomatic. I'm sure the response will be "application to what?" and the answer is anything and everything. I apologize that I don't have time right now to study the way Oists validate things like "justice", so if you have time, please spell it out. If I am mistaken about the Oist position, I do want to be corrected as I do not wish to argue against a "straw-man". So, how does Oism show that "justice" is valid and "God" is not?

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. I was under the impression that "antimatter" was "non-matter".

To "create" for God would not be to "act on something outside of Himself" (since, as you said, there would be nothing outside of Himself). Rather, it would be to bring previously non-existent things into existence. I believe this is where the phrase "ex nihilo" came from, meaning that He created everything else "out of nothing". NOT that existence sprang up "out of nothing", but that God created existents which were previously non-existent. I do want to emphasize, though, that I VERY much agree that the "rules of existence" "apply" to God-- meaning (among many other things) that He could not be some irrational whim-worshiper which is what He is often thought to be. The wording here is a little confusing (mostly the second half), so I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. But I can say that I do not propose that God does not have Identity. God is Himself. I'm not sure how this follows, unless by "create" you mean "use already existent material to form other things". But, as I pointed out above, "creation" for God would mean "bringing something into existence" rather than "acting upon that which already exists". In what way do you mean that my first assertion needs a lot of supporting material? It seems to stand fairly simply on its own. Further "supporting material" may be necessary to answer objections, but so far all of the objections brought up seem to have been a result of misunderstanding what was being said in the argument. Therefore, what you are referring to as "supporting material", I would call "clarification for objectors". Regarding the "arbitrary" issue: I hesitate to even answer this because I would rather not go too far down the "epistemological rabbit hole" again. Haha! But, I think your definition of "arbitrary" is rather.. well, arbitrary. However, if this (the fact that you consider the issue as arbitrary) is a major reason for not accepting the argument, I may be willing to go there. This seems rather simplistic...and it seems to forget the fact that I am arguing that the first position is illogical. I do NOT mean that "Existence exists" is illogical. I mean that what you mean by "existence exists" is illogical. Remember "Existence exists" does not necessarily refer to any particular existent, but rather to existence as such. The Atheist version of "existence exists" means that the physical universe (or some rough equivalent) is "existence as such" and that there is no existent which by nature can act of its own accord. The Theist version of "existence exists" means that God is "existence as such" and that everything else was brought into existence by Him. My argument for Theism is that the Atheist version is illogical. It is illogical because it supposes that action (not reactions) is possible apart from an entity sufficient to act of its own accord. From my understanding of Occam's Razor, the "simpler" explanation is only to be accepted if it is not illogical. Otherwise many "simple" Altruists could claim Occam's Razor as their guiding light, based simply on the fact that the explanations of Egoism seem far more complex than simply accepting Altruism. The truth is that Egoism is FAR simpler (and more rational) but its appearance of complexity is a result of the many many many misunderstandings, objections, straw-men, etc.... I would argue that it is very similar with the issue of Theism. Additionally, this issue of "existence as such" brings me to my very (as of yet) sloppy and truncated Ontological Argument. The fact that "existence exists" means that Existence as such cannot have any outside explanation for its existence. Therefore, there must be an existent for which there is no outside explanation. (That's all I've got of it so far...which is why I'm sticking with the "Prime Mover" one for now).