Jacob86

The following is an attempt to make clear the angle at which I am coming at this issue in relation to Objectivism. I say "attempt" not because I think my efforts are lacking but because I fear even such a careful and elaborate explanation will be ignored by responders who wish to evade the actual subject of the discussion. Objectivism claims that existence is a given- which cannot be proved or disproved and is beyond question. Fine. But they then proceed to espouse a worldview which logically contradicts the possibility of existence. This does not negate existence, but it does negate those parts of the worldview which contradict the possibility of existence. I agree that we must assume existence, but we also must formulate a worldview which adequately integrates existence. “Explaining existence would require stepping outside of existence”. Exactly! Therefore a rational worldview must have an existent for which there is no outside explanation- an existent which is entirely explained in and of itself- a “Necessary Existent”. The Objectivist hastily says that this thing is Nature or “the physical Universe”- for no apparent reason other than that it happens to be the biggest and most all encompassing thing they can conceive of. Then, when a person questions the suitableness of Physical Nature to be considered as this Necessary Existent, the Objectivist repeats the fact that there is no explanation to existence. The Objectivist here has misunderstood the question (or is evading it). The question is not “what is the explanation for existence?”. The question is “Is the physical universe an adequate candidate to be considered the Necessary Existent?” Or “Does the physical universe have or require an outside explanation- which would bar it from being the Necessary Existent?” This question does not violate the axiom “Existence Exists” in any way. Rather, if asked genuinely, it is an honest expression of genuine devotion to the axiom- seeking to fully integrate it into one’s worldview without exception (even if it is difficult or counter-intuitive). A person with integrity who genuinely wishes to be logically consistent with the axiom that “Existence exists” would be eager to scrutinize any and all candidates for the position of “Necessary Existent”. He would not passively allow this position to be filled by any random assumption or whim. The constant reply from Objectivists when asked about explanations for Physical Nature demonstrate that they have done just that- they have passively allowed “the physical universe” to become synonymous with “Existence as such” or “Necessary Existence” without even realizing that they have done it. The two ideas have become so interlocked in their worldview, that they interpret the question “must there be an explanation for the physical universe?” as “must there be an explanation for existence?”. They have filled the category of “an existent without outside explanation” with a particular existent called “the physical universe”- but their inability to distinguish between the above questions demonstrates that they were likely never even aware that such a category existed in the first place- let alone that any candidate to fill such a category must be logically scrutinized. “To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.” –Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs it? p25. Here Rand seems to make the assumption mentioned above. The Theist agrees that” Existence exists, and that therefore _____________cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence”. In general, the blank could be filled by “Existence as such”, but this doesn’t help because it does not specify which existent is being discussed. The Theist is not content to throw just ANY existent in that blank. It is a holy blank and must not be filled passively. For instance- neither the Theist nor the Objectivist would fill the blank with “I” or “My spouse” or “Mt. Everest” or even “The Earth”. Why? Because it is immediately obvious that none of those things fit the context. Each could easily be annihilated and go out of existence. Rand surely thought that “nature” or “the universe as a whole” was sufficient and safe to fill that blank because of her explicit definitions of those terms. She defines “nature” and “the universe” as “the sum total of all existents”. Well, if this is the case, then she certainly has some breathing room as it is illogical to say that “all that exists can be annihilated”. However, in addition to the explicit meanings she attributes to those terms (Nature and Universe), there is the implicit meaning which she also attributes but does not mention as explicitly. She (and most Objectivists) mean “physical nature” and the “physical universe” when they speak of nature and the universe. They are making the assumption up front that physical matter is the only actual form of existence, and then “packaging” that assumption into their definition of the Universe as “all existents”. Therefore, when Rand says “universe” or “all existents”, we should read “the physical universe” and “all physical existents”. In this case, she may not have as much breathing room as it seemed. Perhaps there is good reason to assume that there are other forms of existents which are not physical. In this case, what she means by “nature” and “universe” surely cannot fill the blank. Perhaps there are certain things about "the physical universe" that make it difficult to imagine that it is the Necessary Existent....like the fact that it is only a category referring to many separate entities-each of which does not seem sufficient to fill the blank in and of itself... or the fact that each physical entity seems to have the capability of being annihilated and therefore it does not seem impossible for all physical entities to be annihilated...or the fact that physical entities are mutable while it would seem that a Necessary Existent would not be mutable, etc... Because of many such difficulties the physical universe does not seem qualified to fill the blank any more than “Mt Everest" is- and for the same reasons. Ignoring the difficulties does not make them go away and ignoring them in the name of "upholding the Axiom of Existence" is tantamount to an Altruist ignoring Objectivism in the name of "upholding morality". THIS is the "worldview" or "paradigm" or "angle" at which I am approaching this issue. I am convinced that it is the right approach. The majority of my arguments on this forum have been in the form of questioning the suitability of physical nature to be considered the "ultimate" or "necessary" thing.

I'm going to take a little bit different approach in my next few posts. I have been approaching this issue in a semi-socratic or discussion way- attempting to understand other's positions and to respond accordingly, etc.. However, it's become rather obvious that this isn't going to get anywhere since many in here are not willing to attempt to understand my positions (or perhaps I am just too slow and I ware out their patience)...and since there seems to be A LOT more differences in major metaphysical and epistemological assumptions between myself and the Objectivists on here than I had anticipate. SO, I'm going to take more of an "offensive" approach and spell out some positions of mine which seem to be fundamentally different from those on here. This first post is on whether or not physical matter is all that exists (*please pay special attention to the way in which I mean "exists" in the following). This will also hopefully clear up the debate about the distinction between the mind and the brain.. “Existence” here refers to actual entities which actually exist outside of and apart from the mind. Some commonly refer to ideas or concepts as “existing” in the sense that they “exist” in the mind of a person- however this form of existence (in the mind) must be distinguished from existence apart from the mind. In order to avoid confusion, “exist” in the following is used in the strictest sense to refer only to the type of existence which is outside of the mind. 1)If only physical matter exists (outside of the mind), than physical cause and effect is the only explanation for any event (the interaction of events) or thing (the past, present or future condition of any entity). 2)If there is only physical matter, than our brains are only physical matter and the concept of “mind” is only an abstraction referring to the chemical activity within the physical matter of our brains. 3)If only physical matter in our brains exists (if “minds” don’t actually exist) and if only physical cause and effect can explain all events, then only physical cause and effect can explain the physical/”chemical” activity of our brains. 4)If only physical cause and effect can explain the activity in our brains, then only cause and effect can explain the act which we call “reasoning” or “thinking” or “being objective”. But “to reason objectively” means for the activity of one’s brain to correspond accurately to outside reality. 5)If only physical cause and effect can explain all activity in the brain, then one’s brain cannot be said to accurately correspond to reality except by extremely low probabilities of mere chance. 6)If one’s brain cannot be said to correspond to reality (except by chance) than no proposition (which is a product of the activity of the brain) can be said to correspond to reality. 7)If no proposition can be said to correspond to reality, then the proposition that “only physical matter exists” cannot be said to correspond to reality. 8)If the proposition that “only physical matter exists” cannot be said to correspond to reality (because of the logical implications of the proposition as demonstrated above), then the proposition that “only physical matter exists” is self-contradictory by virtue of the Law of Non-Contradiction. 9)If the proposition that “only physical matter exists” violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, then it is false. 10)By virtue of the law of the Excluded Middle, either “only physical matter exists” or “more than physical matter exists” 11)If the proposition that “only physical matter exists” is false, then by virtue of the Law of the Excluded Middle, there is more than physical matter which exists. Furthermore, following the reasoning above, at least one non physical thing must exist in order for any proposition to correspond to reality- the mind. The mind must be above and outside of physical reality (outside of the influence of cause and effect) in order to commit the act of “objectification” and thus produce a proposition which corresponds to reality. I am not here saying that we must assume a concept called “mind” pragmatically (this is likely what an Objectivist would say). I am saying that in order to assume that any proposition can be valid, we must assume that minds exist in reality- not as mere abstractions in our heads, but as actually entities in objective reality. Objectivists claim that the ability to reason objectively is a given – which cannot be proved or disproved and is beyond question. Agreed. But they then proceed to espouse a world-view (Naturalism) which logically Contradicts this ability (as shown above). This does not negate the ability, but it does negate those parts of the worldview which contradict the ability. I will likely be accused of making an argument for or against the ability to make an argument. This is not what I have done. I have taken a common assumption from the worldview of most Objectivists and shown that it demands the inability to make an argument- which means that it is illogical and should be discarded from a rational worldview. This “it”, this “common assumption” which must be discarded is “Naturalism”- or the idea that only physical matter actually exists. *I owe much of the above argument to C.S. Lewis's argument in his book "Miracles", Chapter 4&5...just trying to give credit where credit is due.

1) "the past" itself, is not solely an abstraction. It's actuality does not depend upon my consciousness abstracting about it. When we "abstract" we are either right or wrong in our abstracting. If we are right, it is because the abstraction correlates to objective reality (the way things actually are). If we are wrong, it's because the abstraction fails to correlate to objective reality. Either way, the emphasis here is not on our subjective conscious abstractions- but on the object of those abstractions (the actual events of the past which are infallibly part of objective reality). Just because it is not here and now and under a microscope- just because we must abstract in order to communicate about it, does not change the fact that IT is real. 2) This limit applies to any and all actual things (whether physical objects, attributes of a physical object, events, etc..). There is always a potentially infinite number of things but never an actually infinite number of things. What sort of evidence are you looking for!? lol. I am paraphrasing almost every philosopher that we would both mutually respect. This is by far the majority position amongst actual philosophers and it's truth seems rather obvious. If you disagree, this seems to be your problem- not mine. "If there was never a beginning (a first event), there would never be a middle (subsequent events)." Haha. This is like demanding evidence that 2 and 2 make 4. Is this REALLY the position of most Objectivists? That there are actual infinities and that statements such as the one above are arbitrary assertions rather than obvious facts?? If so, I think I am truly disappointed. I'm comforted only by the fact that Rand herself did not seem to hold to such nonsense- though maybe she would have gone there if pressed on this issue?? I like to think not. That statement is almost axiomatic because of the definitions of the words. A middle by definition is that which has a beginning. Or, let me put it in your lingo: The concept "middle" implies a "beginning". To assume that it can be used apart from the context of a beginning is to steal it from it's context. Am I to alone rebuild all of logic and philosophy- to re-establish ("provide evidence for") everything which has already been established by countless men with much better intellect than my own, in order to be allowed to discuss reality? I have absolutely every rational reason to believe that there cannot be an actual infinity- if you have some rational reason to doubt this, please submit it. With all due respect, you are severely avoiding the subject here. This "argument for the existence of God" is meant to prove that God exists. What I have established so far in this argument (on this thread) is my evidence. You are launching an objection against the existence of God which goes something like this: "God has a mind but not a physical body and this is impossible because all minds that we know of are correlated to physical bodies". In effect, you are saying "all minds that I know of are correlated to a physical body, therefore all minds are correlated to a physical body, therefore there cannot be a God". If you wish to start a thread (or even write a book) on this half-baked argument against the existence of God, be my guest. I am not arguing FOR the existence of God solely based on the assertion "that there is a non-physical entity which has a mind". I am simply responding to your objections on that particular issue by saying that it is not at all inconceivable or irrational and therefore is not a sufficient reason to throw out the rest of the discussion on proofs for the existence of God. I do not need to "prove" with evidence that a consciousness exists without a physical body (i.e. present a consciousness which belongs to a non-physical entity to you for your examination). I simply need to demonstrate that there is a difference or distinction between the two (mind and physical brain matter) in order to show that one existing without the other is not irrational or inconceivable. I believe I have already done this, but in case you didn't get it: The activity of our consciousness must be distinct from the physical activity of the brain in order for any of out conscious ideas to be considered valid. If you disagree with this, I suppose we could take that issue up- but again, I believe I have the majority of actual philosophers on my side. The axiom "Existence exists" demands that something exist as such (in and of itself)- with no outside explanation for it's existence. Objectivism assumes that this is nature. In this thread, I am challenging that assumption based on the fact that certain other things must be true about that which exists as such (that which has no explanation for it's existence or "necessary being"). I am not content to assume that it is nature because nature does not seem to fit the bill. Again, that is the point of this thread. ** I'm sorry, I've run out of time and need to head into work. I will try to respond to the rest later**

Have you followed the rest of the posts? Considered any of the arguments (on either side) any further? I ask because I appreciate you honest approach to the issue. Here is a link to the Ayn Rand Lexicon with quotes concerning the impossibility of an actual infinity: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html (I also posted the quotes explicitly in an above post). In short, an actual infinity (in reality) is impossible because without an actual "one" or "beginning" there is no actual "two, three, four..." or "middle". Aristotle held to this as did Rand and as does Peikoff and Binswanger (for what it's worth).

I apologize. I'm tired and I had Brian in mind in that response. I WAS responding to him, and you responded to my response to him. I shouldn't have said "you", I should have said "anyone who thinks my position is irrational because they believe that consciousness apart from a physical brain is impossible". I am not setting forth an argument on this small point. This small point is being used as an objection against the entirety of my position (the existence of God). The whole point of this thread/argument is to debate the evidence or proof for this "non-physical entity" (God). If my proofs stand, than there is ample reason to believe it exists and the assumption that a mind can ONLY belong to a physical entity is hardly a proof against it's (God's) existence. I see no reason at all to believe that "mind" and "physicality" are necessarily and logically linked such that one cannot exist without the other. Is this your only argument or objection against my position??

Some helpful quotes on the impossibility of an actual infinity in reality: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html "There is a use of [the concept] “infinity” which is valid, as Aristotle observed, and that is the mathematical use. It is valid only when used to indicate a potentiality, never an actuality. Take the number series as an example. You can say it is infinite in the sense that, no matter how many numbers you count, there is always another number. You can always keep on counting; there’s no end. In that sense it is infinite—as a potential. But notice that, actually, however many numbers you count, wherever you stop, you only reached that point, you only got so far. . . . That’s Aristotle’s point that the actual is always finite. Infinity exists only in the form of the ability of certain series to be extended indefinitely; but however much they are extended, in actual fact, wherever you stop it is finite." Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 3. "An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence." Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 18. "Every unit of length, no matter how small, has some specific extension; every unit of time, no matter how small, has some specific duration. The idea of an infinitely small amount of length or temporal duration has validity only as a mathematical device useful for making certain calculations, not as a description of components of reality. Reality does not contain either points or instants (in the mathematical sense). By analogy: the average family has 2.2 children, but no actual family has 2.2 children; the “average family” exists only as a mathematical device." Harry Binswanger “Q & A Department: Identity and Motion,” The Objectivist Forum, Dec. 1981, 13.

You are using "entity" and "a physical brain" interchangeably. I am not. I firmly believe that God's mind is contained within His being/"entity". This does not necessitate that God have a physical brain. If you still insist that evidence is needed to prove that a mind exists apart from a physical brain, I would ask what sort of evidence would you accept? Keep in mind that I am responding to an objection which says "It is impossible for a consciousness to exist without a physical brain". The burden of proof in this case is on the other foot. It would suffice for me to say "prove it" to you. The only ammunition you have is that we have never experienced it empirically- which is hardly a rock-solid case. However, I am being generous and attempting to help you understand in what sense it IS possible by explaining that there is a necessary difference in US between mind and physical brain- and that therefore it is not at all inconceivable that a mind could exist without a physical brain in an non-physical entity.

The point was to dismantle the objection which assumed that I hold the idea that God exists apart from existence. Many have assumed that I believe that God exists apart from existence (that He created ALL existence)- which is false. I was correcting them. In short, I was burning a straw man- not necessarily putting forth a "proof". Consciousness does not belong to "brain" but to "mind". Just because we don't experience "mind" apart from "brain" does not mean that there is not a distinction. In fact, there must be in order for any concept of our minds to be valid. Furthermore, just because we do not experience "mind" apart from "brain" does not mean that it is impossible for a "mind" to exist apart from the physical material of a brain.

**I apologize in advance: After about TEN reviews of this posting, it was still telling me that I had a mis-matching number of opening and closing quotations. I never found them. I finally gave up and put your quotations in a different font. I"m not sure how it will turn out- hopefully it will not be too confusing. "This itself is an assertion. Now show it to be true. You are asserting that there was a moment when no entities existed, and then a cause caused entities to exist. If that is not correct, which part is not correct, and why?" I am asserting that there was a time when only one Being existed (God) and that He chose to create all other existents which are contingent and mutable. "What is the point of the question? You used capitals and an exclamation, so I'm assuming it is important to your argument, however I've read it several times and don't see anything important about it. How would I go about counting all of the past interactions of an entity? And how is my ability/inability to perform such a tally relevant to the assertion that there is a limit on the number of past interactions of entities?" You seemed to imply (correct me if I'm wrong) that past events could not be considered as "things to be counted" (since they do not currently exist) and therefore the impossibility of an actual infinite could not refer to them. Perhaps I should ask what exactly your position is for clarification. Do you hold "that an actual infinity is impossible, but that past events are not actual and therefore cannot be considered to comprise an actual infinity"? I am under the impression that this is your position. OR, do you hold that "an actual infinity is possible, whether we are talking about past events or not"? " I will again ask: What basis is there for a limit on the number of past interactions of entities " The basis is 1)the impossibility of an actual infinity in reality and 2)The fact that past events are actually parts of reality. Or, to put in laymen's terms: "If there was never a beginning (a first event), there would never be a middle (subsequent events)." "The concept of God is invalid, as it is not only divorced from the conceptual hierarchy, but it contradicts the concepts in that hierarchy." How so? "A creator-consciousness, in an existence without physical form, performing action despite having no physical form by which to enable action - these are all contradictions." Being conscious of that which is not physical is not a contradiction. Being conscious of nothing is. I know most Objectivists think that "God" is SOLELY Consciousness and therefore had nothing to be conscious of before creation ("Consciousness which is conscious only of itself is a contradiction"). However, Theism holds that God EXISTS and that He was conscious of His EXISTENCE-not solely His Consciousness. This is no more irrational than Me being conscious of my own existence- Unless (as I stated previously), you would bar the individual the ability to be conscious of his own existence which smacks heavily of Altruism. " Existence implies entities; " God is an entity which exists before and above all other entities. He is Existence as such. Objectivists know that because "Existence Exists", Existence must therefore be eternal- but Existence is a property belonging to entities. Therefore if Existence is eternal, some entity must be eternal. (This isn't necessarily my primary proof for the existence of God, but it should be helpful to help you understand what I am and am not saying). " consciousness implies observation of entities; " (See above). Must it imply observation of OTHER entities? Am I only able to be conscious of all entities except myself?? Must God be incapable of being aware of His own existence? " time implies the motion of entities." Agreed. And I believe time began the moment that God created an other entity and set it in motion. You seem to believe that entities have always been in motion with no beginning and no sufficient reason for said motion. " To use these terms divorced from those implications is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept" Again, agreed. Have I actually used these terms divorced from those implications?

I have not stated, nor do I hold that a cause creates physical entities. I do hold that a cause "causes something to happen"- or that a cause causes entities to act/change in certain ways which would not have happened apart from the cause. I am not asserting any cause or event apart from entities. I am asserting that an event(any change of a particular entity) must be explained either wholly by the nature of the entity itself (which would require self-determination in the entity) or partially by an other event involving other entities. That is what I mean when I talk about cause and effect- and that's what I assumed everyone else means when they use those words. lol. I understand and fully agree that causation necessarily involves the nature of the entity(ies) involved- that drinking water and cyanide have drastically different effects because water and cyanide have drastically different natures. I get that. But, I don't think you get that apart from interaction of other entities, there would be no alteration/event/effect- regardless of the nature of the entity in question. If I hadn't DRANK the water/cyanide, there would be no change to compare the two! Change in an entity is referred to as an effect and the reason for the change is referred to as the cause- the type of effect which occurs as a result of the cause is necessarily influenced by the natures of the entity acting as cause and the entity which is the effect- but the nature in and of itself is not sufficient reason for the effect. The nature of cyanide is not a sufficient reason for explaining my death. I must DRINK it. I really hope this clears up this discussion on cause and effect- I have no idea why it needed to be so long and painful. lol. I've simply been trying to use the terms in the way they are commonly used and assuming that we all understood what was meant by them. By "state of affairs" I mean "situation" or any given truth about one or more entities and their relationships to others at a particular point in time. The fact that I am typing right now is a "state of affairs". I suppose you could call it a "fact". But the past interaction DID occur. It is a fact. That fact is not negated by the passage of time. 2,000 years from now it will still be true that "Jacob86 is typing on his computer at Starbucks at 7:51pm on November 5th, 2010 AD". I'm trying to stress that the passage of time does not negate the reality of past events and therefore past events (as part of reality as a whole) cannot be excluded when discussing the number of interactions of physical entities in reality. In fact, doesn't the expression "number of interactions of physical entities" IMPLY the passage of time? How could you count the number of interactions of any particular physical entity if you excluded every interaction which was not CURRENTLY occurring!? However, many extremely important things are implicit in the Laws of Logic applied to reality (The Law of Cause and Effect, Human Rights, The "Good", etc..) all of which do not have empirical scientific proof and all of which are necessities in a rational world view. I would contend that God is one of those important, non-empirical, necessities- necessitated by Logic (as is being attempted to be shown here). Aristotle also seemed to hold to this idea. I do not think I am in bad company. The fact that 99% of the world's Theists have had completely irrational views in their Theism does not bother me any more than the fact that seemingly 99% of professing capitalists have completely irrational views about their Capitalism. I am still a proud Capitalist because I am after TRUTH for Truth's sake, not the majority position on an issue. PLEASE read my post on the previous page with my response to common objections (which are all based on straw men). I do not hold that God is solely Consciousness conscious only of His own Consciousness. That is a straw man. I do not hold that God exists in non-existence. Another straw man. I do not hold that He acted apart from time. Another straw man.

The argument has been presented elsewhere in this thread. I stated in that particular post that I was responding to objections based on straw men. There is a difference between laying forth an argument and responding to objections concerning one's position. It was clear that the majority of people in this thread could not see or understand the argument because they were blinded by what they thought to be legitimate objections to my belief in God- but which were really straw men. These needed to be clarified in order to move on (or back) to the argument.

I do not think that I am guilty of "reification" here. I would be if I said that "an event went on a walk" or "put on a hat" (treating it as something it is not- a physical concrete object). Reification is fallacious because it treats something as if it were something other than what it actually is (violates the law of Identity). I am not asserting that events or causes are physical entities. But, I am asserting that they are real. It seems that you are assuming that "Existence" is restricted to physical concrete entities which can be studied under a microscope. I don't think that this is what Objectivism holds to, but I could be wrong. This sort of strict "physicalism" or "materialism" or "concretism" (whatever you want to call it) would seem to have MANY logical problems. I have not spoken of "events" or "causes" apart from entities or before existence as such. I have spoken of them in terms of particular existents ("Things happened before I existed"). But this isn't irrational in the least. I can claim that past interactions of entities exist because that state of affairs is REAL. All truth is eternal (I believe Rand also held to this view). The truth that" I slept in my bed last night" will always be true as long as "last night" refers to the night of Nov. 4th 2010 and as long as "I" refers to me. States of affairs are real, they are eternally true, and therefore exist- whether any particular mind knows it or not. Say no one else knows that I slept in my bed last night and I die- leaving no one to REMEMBER that this happened. This does not in any way negate the fact that it did happen. The interaction of entities (even in the past) are not contingent upon my or anyone else's consciousness. They exist- perhaps not in the same sense that my finger exists. But physical concrete entities are not the only form of existence. There is no physical evidence for the Laws of Logic or for Human Rights- And yet we would contend that they are more real and obvious than any physical phenomenon, and that those who refuse to accept them are the ones playing irrational word games and evading reality. I would say the same thing about the existence of God (as I think Aristotle would)- and I would add that just as the consequences of ignoring such obvious truth as Logic is horrendous, so too it is with this issue.

I'm going to assume that the major point of discussion now is that "A"- "An actual infinite cannot exist". There are three options here: Option 1: You agree that an actual infinite is impossible, but you don't agree that this necessitates an "uncaused cause" or "prime mover" or "necessary being". In this case, please point out what OTHER point of my argument you disagree with. ALSO, please aid me in convincing those in "option 3" of this position. Option 2: You agree that an actual infinite is impossible and you agree that this necessitates an uncaused cause/prime mover/necessary being- but this is not necessarily "God". In this case, I will suspend discussion (for now) on proving that it is "God", until a decent amount of people arrive at this option (assuming any will)! ALSO, please aid me in convincing those in options 1 & 3 of this position. Option 3: You disagree that an actual infinite is impossible. ****Please, Everyone who responds: Clarify where you stand! For the sake of taking this conversation seriously. If you stand at option 3, it's pretty obvious, but if you stand at either 1 or 2, please make it known, as this is not as obvious.

The series would need to have a starting point by virtue of "A"- but that IS assuming that A is true. This seems to be the point at which most people on here disagree, however it seems that some DO agree that there cannot be an actual infinite- but these want to jump to other points in my argument which sometimes involve straw men. So, I'm trying to take stock and have an orderly discussion. Haha! I will be happy to discuss why I hold that there cannot be an actual infinite- but first, I'd like to establish where everyone else stands on that issue and establish that this is the point of crucial disagreement. Otherwise everyone is launching attacks (legitimate or otherwise) in every angle and direction in such a way that it is impossible for me to respond.

*Rolls eyes*- perhaps that's because I've been too busy helping you see what I'm ACTUALLY saying and getting your attention off of the dozens of straw men which have been concocted. Perhaps you haven't taken the time to consider the proof I've laid forth because I don't speak to you like you're a stupid little monkey (which seems to be the common practice around here). Perhaps you also haven't been able to see the argument because you've been too busy shoving straw men in your eyes. (I mean "you" in general to mean the majority of people in this thread). See my above response to ctrl_y for a brief summary of PART of my argument (the central part). If you disagree with a particular point in that argument, please specify as HE has been so kind as to do. EXAMPLE: He would question "A"- that there cannot be an actual infinite. This way, I can RESPOND to your ACTUAL point of disagreement RATHER than a to a plethora of straw men. If you accept my argument but do not accept my conclusion that this uncaused cause is God, fine. That can be argued further- but ONLY IF and WHEN this part of the argument is established. Otherwise we're spinning our wheels and wasting a whole lot of time which I am not at all interested in doing. Thanks.

I know there have been a few threads concerning homosexuality, but this question is a little more generic- and sort of two fold. The first question is: Did Rand ever explicitly spell out her views on Gender Differences, roles, etc..? She seems to imply Gender Differences/Distinctions in much of her fictional writing (women being "man-worshipers", Dagny having the ultimate "feminine feeling of being chained" when she wore Rearden's bracelet, etc..). And if not, has any Objectivist attempted to spell out an Objectivist view on this issue? Where can I find it? etc..? The second is: Did Rand ever explain why she considered homosexuality grotesque? This is what I read on Wikipedia: homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_homosexuality). I haven't researched the source, but it's listed and seems legitimate. I know that she was not against homosexuality being LEGAL. But, it seems that she viewed it as extremely unhealthy, and I'm curious as to why. Any insights, thoughts, or sources??? Thanks.

At the risk of going against what I said in my above post ("that I would like to wait and clear up objections before proceeding with the argument"), I feel I should answer you briefly since you are the one who began this new surge of discussion. I have BRIEFLY reviewed those arguments which you have cited and to me, they seem to be too weak in comparison to what I am saying. Or, to put it differently, what I am saying is sort of taking the strongest points of their arguments and leaving out the weaker ones. Their weaknesses seem to have been in assuming that the Universe is finite and contingent. The 2nd premise in the Kalam syllogism you listed above is easily contestable when left at that. I would say that the syllogistic summary you made of my argument is accurate (I appreciate your accuracy). I haven't labored to expand a whole lot on those premises because they seem so self-evident, or much more so (at least) than in the Kalam syllogism. But allow me to attempt some clarification on that: 1) Every effect has a cause- This is almost axiomatic since an "effect" is "that which is caused". 2) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes- This has been a point of some contention (obviously) but I think it still holds. However, to further clarify this point, let me submit the following: A. An actual infinite cannot exist. B. An infinite temporal regress of physical events is an actual infinite. C. Therefore an infinite temporal regress of physical events cannot exist. 3) If there is any effect, than by virtue of "1", there is a cause which is either effected itself, or not. If it is effected itself, than it has a cause which is also either effected or not... 4) This cannot go on infinitely by virtue of "2" and therefore, if there is any effect, there must be a cause which itself was not caused. 5) There is an effect, and therefore there must be an uncaused cause. Does that make sense (at least in terms of the deductive validity that you were asking for)??

I wish some of you would read Aristotle's reasons for the existence of God-- and maybe even Aquinas' interpretations of Aristotle. I think you would find that your straw men do not measure up. Even if I were a convinced Atheist, I don't think I could dismiss either Aristotle or Aquinas as "silly stupid mystics" right off the bat without some serious contemplation and wrestling. I understand that the majority of Theists have presented themselves as stupid mystics with all the common evasions associated with Mysticism- and for that I apologize on behalf of Theism. However, I would appreciate it if you could consider the idea that I and others (however few they may be) are seriously approaching the issue as rationally and objectively as possible. I have labored to make it abundantly clear that I denounce mysticism as vehemently as any of you and that if I happen to hold to false ideas, it is by mistake of reason- not by virtue of mysticism. So please, refrain from straw men and accusations of "faith", "mysticism", "evasion", etc... Some Clarifications concerning common Objections raised thus far: [**I am NOT here laying out arguments FOR the existence of God so please do not respond to these by saying "You haven't proved anything". I know that. I am responding to common objections against particular points of my submissions.... These must be resolved before any meaningful conversation concerning proofs can proceed**] 1) Neither Aquinas, Aristotle, or I have espoused that "EVERYTHING has a cause". That is obviously self-contradictory. What HAS been espoused is that "every contingent thing has a cause or something upon which it is contingent" OR that "every thing which is an effect or effected must have a sufficient cause" OR that "everything which began to exist must have a cause". Do you see the difference? These are all sort of different ways of saying the same thing and they are logically infallible- by definition, one would need to violate the LNC to object. So PLEASE- no more objections based on the straw man that "everything is caused". I didn't say that and I've emphasized a FEW times that I don't hold to that. It's getting tiresome. [i would submit that everything but God falls into this category of "contingent/effect/effected" and that everything but God MUST fall into that category- BUT that is for later discussion on proofs. I don't wish to prove that now. I only mention it here in order to clarify my position]. 2) I do not hold (and neither did Aquinas or Aristotle) that God created all of existence. This is also obviously irrational since it excludes God from "all of existence". I affirm with all Objectivists that "Existence Exists"- and that Existence (as such) is and must be eternal. However, not all existents are eternal (and I certainly am not). I (and I think Aq. & Ar.) would submit that God is Existence "as such"- "the eternal existent". [some have also referred to God in terms of "subsistence" -emphasizing that He IS in and of Himself- rather than "EX-isting"/ being "OUT OF" something prior]. "Ico" objects to the idea that "God is equivalent to Existence" by saying "I am not God, [and I exist], therefore God is not equivalent to Existence". However, this assumes that "I" is equivalent to Existence and reduces Existence to "Me"! Furthermore, when we are talking about Existence in the axiomatic, necessary, eternal sense, we are not talking about any particular, contingent, non-eternal existents, but Existence as such. To say that God is Existence as such does not seem to be a problem. I do submit that God is Necessary Existence and that all OTHER particular existents are contingent upon Him; that all existents which are not God are finite, non-eternal, mutable and caused. This is also the position of Aquinas & Aristotle. 3) I do not submit (and neither did Aq. or Ar.) that God is solely Consciousness which was conscious only of it's own Consciousness. Again, this is obviously irrational since Consciousness means being conscious of something which EXISTS. Existence is a sort of "pre-requisite" to Consciousness. This is what Objectivism teaches and I heartily agree! However, I do submit that God EXISTS and is conscious of HIS EXISTENCE. This by no means seems irrational. If it is irrational to say that "God is conscious of Himself" than it is irrational to say that "I am conscious of myself". Would Objectivists bar the ability to be conscious of one's own self!? THIS smacks of altruism! (ironically enough)!! Consider that a being which happens to be conscious is NOT "solely Consciousness" since if it IS a "being" than it EXISTS, and therefore you do not have Consciousness APART from Existence but both at the same time (with Existence preceding Consciousness in logical priority but not necessarily consecutively). So please no more objections along that line. That straw man is also dead. I believe that SHOULD help to clarify my position quite a bit and hopefully enable discussion to move forward. However, if you think I have still been unclear on an issue (whether dealt with above or elsewhere) and you think that issue is of an essential nature to the discussion, please set it forth. If you think that I have not sufficiently answered any of the above objections, please let me know and explain. In order to avoid huge wastes of time and energy on straw men, etc.. I would rather not move forward until everyone sees that THIS is the position I hold and that it (in terms of what has been stated above) is not illogical/irrational/ or based on mysticism/faith. I understand that I haven't necessarily PROVEN the existence of God yet, but I want to make sure that everyone else understands that these points of my position have also not been proven to be at fault. Thanks. -Jacob

I'm pretty sure I agree with this view of causes (that they are the entities which have effects based on their identity, etc..) but I've avoided referring to "things" as causes and tried to emphasize "events" because I've been accused of reifying them. Anyways, I don't reject your illustration- however, I don't know if it is the most helpful simply because it involves human volition which is sort of a whole other debate. I'm not necessarily speaking of things that volitional beings do which effect nature through reason (it SEEMS that is a special and different type of cause and effect from that of natural objects acting as causes and effects upon one another). does that make sense? I know I could be accused of the same thing because I originally invoked the "traditional" illustration of a game of pool. I apologize. But, apart from volition, isn't the case quite different? There isn't an "amplifier" which confuses the necessary consequences of certain changes among objects. If an objects nature is such to remain stationary unless acted upon, and it happens to move, than it must have been acted upon (or caused to move). Perhaps a better way to frame this is to imagine asking the question "How did that happen?" of every change among all of matter and realizing that every change must have an answer unless or until we get to an original change which was initiated by a volition which belongs to a being that is eternal. This is because either change occurs through the willing volition of a conscious being or it occurs through interaction of inanimate matter who's movement and changes always require further explanation. Does this make sense?

Also, real quick. I understand the contention about a Consciousness that is only conscious of itself being illogical. That is why Objectivists discard Aristotle's prime mover theory. However, is that the ONLY reason?? I don't know if Aristotle would have said that the Prime Mover is solely consciousness and that it is solely conscious of it's own consciousness. Isn't it possible that the Prime Mover is an Existent that is conscious and that was conscious of it's own objective existence? This does not seem any more foolish than Myself being conscious of my own objective existence. Are you saying it is illogical for a conscious Being to be conscious of it's own existence?? This seems to be the only case Objectivism has against Aristotle's Prime Mover and it seems fairly weak. In fact, in his Prime Mover theory (and in my argument) you not only have the primacy of existence but you have existence, identity, and consciousness (all 3 necessary axioms) wrapped up in one existent/ "being".

Ok, but events do have causes. does there not need to be a beginning in the cause and effect chain??

Haha. I was able to follow. Ok. So it applies to the pencil on my desk- not just to the molecules which comprise the pencil? correct? "The pencil exists". "It is an existent". If this is the case, I am very confused as to the way some seem to use the axiom. I don't think YOU particularly have used it in this way, but perhaps you could shed some light on the issue for me. I've ran into many that seem to imply that because of the axiom, it is improper/illogical to ask "why" about an existent- and especially to imply that an existent has a cause. But, my pencil did have a cause. Had somebody not altered the wood of the tree and all the other elements of nature required in order to make it, it would not exist (in it's current form). And it seems there are plenty of legitimate "why questions" that could be asked regarding my pencil. "Why was it created?" "Why is it mine?" "Why is it on my desk?" etc... Do you see the conflict that confuses me here?

But is it applied to every particular existent in it's various particular forms? And in that case, is it not just a restating of the Law of Identity?

After about the first page and a half of this thread, the conversation became heavily focused on the possibility/impossibility of an infinite regress of causes. Aleph_0 has begun a new thread on that topic. I encourage anyone who is interested to take part in that discussion. I hope to take part as well. However, I would like to try and continue this discussion with any who might be settled on that particular issue and who would be interested in discussing the further steps of my argument. SO, assuming there cannot be an infinite regress of causation.... I realize that I may have mis-spoke in some of my terminology. While I am not personally fully convinced that entities cannot have causes, I am willing to concede that point (for now) in order to carry on the discussion. The reason is that even if entities cannot fall into the category of cause/effect, events can; and therefore the Law of Cause and Effect still stands. I don't think I asserted that existence (as such) is an effect- rather that a particular existent in it's non-original form is an effect. And what I mean is that the changing of it's form in any sort of relationship is an effect which was caused by something acting upon it. I am arguing that "all of the motions, changes, alterations of and in things are" an effect and therefore require a cause- there cannot be an infinite regress of causes and therefore there must be a primary cause that did not have a cause before it. As I said above, I am willing to alter my language for now and instead of saying "there must be an existent that is not an effect", I will say "there must be an event that is not an effect". I stressed in my opening definition of the Law of Cause and Effect that "everything" does NOT need a precursor. Only effects need precursors. If God is an effect, He needs a precursor (and wouldn't be "God"). However, here we are focusing less on entities (God vs. the universe) and more on events. Please see my replies above.

I just read your new thread on the subject of an infinite quantity and I would like to perhaps leave that part of this conversation for that thread (for the same reasons you stated in creating the thread). I anticipate doing some heavy thinking (and maybe reading) on the subject and following up on that thread. I think you already know this, but my current position would probably fall under the "axiomatic" argument; however I am obviously unable to articulate it at this time. Thank you for the lively conversation and I look forward to seeing more on the subject in your new thread.