Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jacob86

Regulars
  • Posts

    554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Jacob86

  1. Once again, please state your epistemological premises which lead you to say that this is an "unprovable" issue. I am still waiting. You keep hinting at it, implying that there is some unspoken epistemological law that automatically makes my position arbitrary and I am eager to learn this law. Speak it. Put it in writing. Once again, the reason that you cannot see the difference between my argument here and the "God of the gaps" BS is because you have failed to carefully identify and analyze your own epistemological standards. Until your prepared to have a serious discussion about epistemology, this conversation cannot move forward. Do you or do you not hold that empirical observation is the only way to tell whether something is true or false? If yes, be ready to defend it. If no, what other ways may someone be able to tell whether something is true or false? (*Hint, I use it in my argument)
  2. I agree that reality wins and that when reality contradicts established or accepted premises, it is the premises which need to be altered. However I think the emboldened part is an important point of difference. You seem to equate established science (i.e. empirical observation) with reality and philosophy with speculative rules. This may be the case in regard to SOME philosophical premises, but not in all. If science discovers something which it THINKS is a contradiction, the philosophical premise of "A is A" should NOT be altered. Rather, the scientists interpretation and understanding of the phenomena is what needs to be altered. Remember that strict scientific inquiry only gathers empirical data. It is up to philosophy to integrate and interpret that data accordingly. If the interpretation of that data contradicts a necessary philosophical/logical law -NOT a special science law like the laws of inertia- but a logical law like the law of identity, it is the interpretation, not the law, which must be altered. But the action caused by gravitation force MUST be an action in response to prior action because gravity only acts on one or more objects with some distance between them (agreed, the distance doesn't matter). If gravity is eternal and the objects proposed are also eternal, then they would have been eternally together--never separate and therefore never able to be attracted to each other by gravitational force. Gravity is only possible in a system where some action has already taken place (i.e. where some objects have been separated by some distance by means of some force other than gravity). If no other acting force ever exerted itself, gravity would have held all the objects together forever and no action as a result of gravitation force would have ever occurred. No, saying "spontaneous" implies no cause (that A is not A). Saying God implies a volitional cause. One is a contradiction. The other is merely counter-intuitive.
  3. Relax, Greebo. I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here. That's why I was careful to ask what he meant by "prove" and in my response I included "demonstrating" the validity of reason as a possible meaning of "prove". I understand that in the strict sense of "prove" that reason is not proved because it is axiomatic. I wanted to emphasize that we do know that reason is valid because we grasp (by reason) that it is axiomatic and that an axiom is necessarily true. I was using "demonstrate" loosely to mean "showing to someone else why it is valid".
  4. Probably to your surprise, I completely agree with you about the need to consider context when discussing established rules. The rules you are speaking of are special science rules (involving physics mostly). I agree that those rules of physics would not and probably did not apply in a different context. It's funny though, because this is usually an issue which atheistic scientists wish to avoid at all costs. However, I think you have misunderstood my argument. I have not argued that my conclusion is necessary based on the current laws of physics. In fact, I have been very careful not to mention the current laws of physics for the very reasons which you have listed above (the fact that they don't apply to this discussion in the same way they would if we were discussing something else, because of the context). It seems that you are just now coming around to agreeing with me that this issue cannot be answered by the special sciences (something which Plasmatic has rightfully pointed out a few times). We may not know what special scientific rules apply, but we do know which philosophical ones apply. An entity can only act according to its nature. This is why I have insisted that we stick to those things which necessarily remain constant in any context (i.e. the laws of identity & causality). No matter what context we are speaking of, an entity (whether matter OR energy) can only act according to its nature. There are only two possible types of nature in respect to action: that which is a response to prior action and that which is not a response to prior action; that which reacts and that which acts on its own; that which reacts and that which chooses to act. Your appeal to it possibly being "spontaneous" is somewhat of a cop-out. Spontaneous means without any known cause or without an intended cause- it does not mean without a cause at all. Any "spontaneous" event (just like all events) will have a cause- and that cause will ultimately be owing to prior action or to the volitional nature of the actor.
  5. If by "prove" you mean "demonstrate/establish the validity of" and if by "reason" you mean the general processes of logic, then I absolutely would NOT agree with this statement- it would negate all knowledge and reason. Logic is axiomatic, not circular. Therefore, the validity of reason (the use of logic) is axiomatic, not circular. Do you mean to imply that that there is some other method by which reason may be "proven"? Or do you mean to imply that reason is impotent?
  6. That's fine, but you are jumping about 10 steps ahead. I personally do hold that God has no physical form, and this does indeed lead to some confusion about how He might interact with a physical world, but I am not attempting to address that (and the many other issues of possible confusion) right now. Before we discussed that, it would need to be established that God is without physical form (and it would probably also need to be established that He created physical matter), but before we can establish any of these facts about God, we need to establish that He exists. To go on speculating about His attributes and His interactions with other entities without first establishing His existence would be quite a pointless waist of time - somewhat reminiscent of debating Capitalism with someone who does not believe that A is A or that Man is capable of consciousness. Incidentally, Greebo's latest post/theory about energy (without physical form) creating physical matter might seem to shed some light on this issue.
  7. Well, there was obviously the "Argument for the existence of God" thread which sort of went all over the place. haha. Then there was the "Infinite Quantity" which I think was started by Aleph-0 but I would say the most relevant post in that one is at the very end concerning the impossible of an infinite quantity other than in the future. Then, I had a thread that I think was called "Integrating Volition" in which I elaborated more on my argument against Naturalism (the idea that only the physical universe exists), and then this one. I THINK that's all. lol. But if you have any specific questions about my position, Ill be happy to rehash whatever needs to be repeated for the sake of clarity, etc.. Night.
  8. Stop right there. Did the idea of an immovable mover come about by imagination or by a line of reasoning? Have I submitted my imagination or have I submitted a line of reasoning? I think you know the answer. You claim not to be an empiricist and you do well in holding true to that until it comes to an issue you don't like. Everything else you said in your post assumed empiricism as an epistemology. "What does God look like?" as if not knowing negates His existence. "How is it possible for something without a physical brain to be conscious?" because I've never seen it happen, etc... The problem, though, is that it is assumed rather than stated. That is why I have BEGGED repeatedly for someone to clearly STATE their epistemological standards and demonstrate how my actual position (not a straw-man) falls short of those standards. Don't just ask vague questions with approximate implications. Clearly and concisely state which epistemological laws I violate and where in my position. State your standards, please. State them in a declarative sentence, in the open, so that they can be analyzed for validity and then clearly applied to my position. Until someone does this, we are just playing games where the Atheists apply un-spoken, un-defined, un-known, and impossible to be followed epistemological laws. I don't play that game in business. I don't play that game with the government. And I sure won't play it with philosophy.
  9. This is why I ask you (and others) to state your epistemological premises. I don't think very many Objectivists are able to state their epistemological standards and then to be consistent with them. **Please don't take this as a total indictment against Objectivism/Rand/etc... I think Rand operated off of a very different epistemology than that which she wrote about and therefore Objectivism in general is not as negatively effected by the minor (but important) errors** Back to empiricism. There are a few basic variants of empiricism which are easily dismissed. Perhaps your standard is that "Only that which can be observed with sensory perception can be considered true" Can you observe with sensory perception that that standard is accurate? No. It falls by it's own weight. Perhaps it is "Only that which can be empirically verified can be considered true". Can you empirically verify that? No. It cannot be considered true by it's own standards. Perhaps it is "That which is not falsifiable is arbitrary". Is this falsifiable? No. Then it is arbitrary by it's own definition. You see, your functional definition of "arbitrary" in your objections against me is "arbitrary" by it's own definition. You classify as arbitrary any assertion for which an empirical test cannot be applied without realizing that you cannot apply an empirical test to that definition of arbitrary. None of this means that empirical data is useless. It simply means that empirical observation/testing/falsifying/verifying/etc.. cannot be considered the epistemological standard for all of truth. There must be other, more foundational epistemological criteria, or else nothing beyond the range of the moment (immediately perceived) can be known at all.
  10. No, its more like saying "A is A" even when we're talking about energy and I don't want to waste time. Could you elaborate on what you mean here and on how it is relevant? If you ask this straw-man question again, I will ignore it. We are both in agreement that SOMETHING eternal is necessitated. We are not debating that. We are debating the NATURE of that eternal thing (volitional or not). What you have written below would have sufficed. Yes, it is equally necessary for there to have been eternal energy. This begs the question though- energy of what? And when the state of the energy was altered (in whatever form and by whatever means you wish to posit), was this alteration a result of some prior event (for which another causal explanation is required) or was it volitional? You see, I am not saying "God was necessary for the first action... just because". I am saying a VOLITIONAL action must have been the first action (because A is A) and therefore God (a volitional being) was necessary.
  11. By this do you mean to say that you are an empiricist? That the only way to know truth is through empirical observation and therefore any assertion without empirical data is either false or arbitrary? If this is your position, I will respond accordingly. If it's not your position (i.e. if you are not an empiricist) then please state any other epistemological standards which you may hold to. So is "falsifiability" the epistemological standard you wish to assert? Would you say that all non- empirically falsifiable statements are necessarily false/arbitrary? This is a straw-man. Theistic philosophers do not put forth their whim or their imagination as the sole reason for their Theism. They do provide non-empirical reasons, but if you wish to bar non-empirical reasoning, then you must be prepared to explain why... and to be consistent (i.e. you must be prepared to state your epistemological standards, to defend them, and to fully integrate them into your worldview). No. I'm a college drop out. And a Bible-college dropout at that!
  12. First of all, it is rather confusing to use the term "universe" when we get to this point because that term subsumes a vast number of individual things. If you would like to say "the physical universe moved itself", what you mean is that some part of the physical universe moved itself (or perhaps the tiny spec of singularity with contained the whole physical universe moved itself). But what does that mean? Is it possible for inanimate (non-volitional) objects to "move themselves"? Obviously not. Perhaps one would like to posit an infinite chain of movements (like the oscillating universe model). This runs into the problem of an infinite regress dealt with in the "Infinite Quantity" Thread (see the last post in the thread by myself). Perhaps one would like to appeal to the gravitational force between two objects. The problem here is that if gravity were eternal, and the two (or multiple) objects being posited were eternal, then these objects would have been eternally together-- they never would have been apart and therefore gravity never would have acted upon them to cause motion. These are a few examples of why I say that it doesn't matter what sort of special scientific model one wants to posit concerning the origins of motion, the laws of identity and causality will remain the same. No matter how far back on the timeline or how far down on the microscope, all action is either a response to previous action or it is volitional. EDIT: As I re-read your question, I realized that you might have been emphasizing a different aspect and I wanted to address it real quick. Were you asking "why does something which moves itself have to be an intelligent being?" The answer is because to "move one's self" apart from the causal influence of anything else is to move by volition. And to have volition is to have an intelligent faculty by which to grasp alternatives (move or don't move) and a valuing faculty by which to choose (move, rather than not move) which give rise to the volitional movement. I apologize. I was sort of responding to others in this thread through my response to you and I failed to make that clear. I did not mean any of that part of my response to be directed at you. I am happy to re-hash or re-clarify for those who honestly need a refresher/reminder/catch-up on the debate. I just don't want to start back at step 1 with the same people over and over.
  13. I do also hold that God created matter, but that is not what I am attempting to prove in this forum and it requires somewhat of a different line of reasoning. For the purposes of the current discussion, God is the "Immovable Mover". God as "Creator", "Omniscient", etc.. can be dealt with in future conversations. Never heard of him. You say this is where a blank-out occurs, and I say this is where another lesson on epistemology is in order. You heavily imply that my inability to produce an empirical example of this phenomena makes it automatically false. That is, you heavily imply that my position falls short of an important epistemological standard, but you do so without naming the standard-- and when the standards is not named, it is not scrutinized. Name it. By what epistemological standard is it necessary for me to provide the requested empirical data in order for my position to be considered true? If there is no such epistemological standard at work, and this is simple curiosity on your part, that is well and good-- I will just ask you to remember the difference. No, I do not believe that God is the totality of matter. I also do not hold that there is any sort of dichotomy between consciousness and matter. I do hold that consciousness can exist independent from matter and that in Man, it is to some degree independent of matter in terms of causation. As far as "proof" goes, that once again begs the epistemological question. What sort of proof would you accept, what sort would you reject, and why?
  14. I think I summed it up in the post which you quoted (just above the piece you quoted). I'll elaborate. The correct Philosophical position among Theists is not that "something had to be eternal and we choose God" as Sagan seems to imply. If that was the Theistic position, we certainly could (and probably should) "save a step" and just say "the Physical Universe is the eternal thing". However, the issue is a bit more complex than that and the fact that Sagan is able to evade the real issue while walking through a sunny forest, declaring that he is courageously pressing into truth is offensive and somewhat nauseating. I can forgive Sagan only on the assumption that he never spoke to/ read a Theist who actually addressed the real issue (which is possible). The issue is not about arbitrarily picking your favorite eternal thing. The issue is identifying the necessary nature of the eternal thing. Philosophical Theists conclude that God is the eternal thing, not by whim, but because they see that the physical universe does not logically fit that category... they see that only an eternal, volitional being can logically explain motion/creation/etc... That is the forward direction of the argument. Obviously you would like to challenge the assertion that only a volitional being can logically explain motion (and that's fine), but please do not go backward in the argument as though I am arbitrarily choosing God for no particular reason other than my personal whim. I have provided my reasoning. I am simply asking that everyone here refute it rather than evade it and set up straw-men.
  15. I haven't watched it yet, but I might later. As to your question about the mechanism by which God expressed His will, I don't know, and I don't need to know. I might do some thinking and studying to find out, but that is quite off topic. Surely Objectivists would agree that one does not need to know all of the details of something in order to know some of the details concerning that thing. For now, let the definition of God be "that eternal existent which began all motion by volition".
  16. Once again, Plasmatic, I would like to express my appreciation for your ability to not get lost in a hyper-inductive, concrete-bound, special sciences, fit concerning these simple philosophical discussions.... and I look forward to interacting with you about these issues.
  17. If the conversation "leads" to an endless spiral of you taking back things already established and agreed to, then we most certainly will be done. For now, I will answer you objection, assuming everything previously established and hope that the conversation will only "lead" forward. You posit that the phenomena among energy and/ matter can account for the beginning of motion. The details don't matter, so spare me. Whatever you or anyone else wants to claim was possible among energy or matter, none of it can violate the laws of identity and causality. Any event which occurred (either with energy, or matter, or both) will have one of two possible causes. Either an event before that caused it (whether it was heating, cooling, expanding, contracting, gravitation force, a giant monkey, I don't care), or the energy/matter being discussed was somehow volitional and acted of it's own accord without the causal influence of anything else. It doesn't matter how far back on the timeline you wish to go, it doesn't matter how far down the microscope you wish to peer, or how far out in deep space you wish to explore. No matter what, there will always be one of two options: The event was subject to external causes or The event was volitional. All events which are subject to external causes imply previous events which themselves are subject to the same alternative. It's very simple. Like a math equation.
  18. This is a sly strawman of the Theistic position. The proponents of this strawman get away with it because most Theists don't care enough to make the issue more clear. I'm not one of them. The claim is not "something can't be put in motion without something else putting it in motion", the claim is that all motion is caused either by outside motion or by volition. Since an infinite regress of outside motion (causes) is impossible, there must be a first motion which was not caused by outside motion, i.e. by volition. Likewise with creation. The claim is that nothing can create itself (LNC), existence has always existed (Something can't come from nothing), "existence" refers to one or more actual existents. Therefore, of all existents, there must be at least one existent which was not created (i.e. which is eternal). Now, obviously the Atheist will respond to the first (the motion argument) by appealing to some possible other explanation of the beginning of motion. That's fine, and we can debate that, but PLEASE please please do not take us BACKWARD in the argument to this ridiculous strawman of Theism. Likewise, the Atheist will respond to the second (about creation) by saying that matter and energy are eternal. That's fine, we can debate that. But PLEASE please please do not take us BACKWARD in the argument to this ridiculous strawman of Theism. I will debate FORWARD concerning ideas which logically come after what has been established. I WILL NOT entertain the idiocy of going back to things which have been covered over and over again because someone wants to drag out a dead horse all of a sudden.
  19. You are correct that it doesn't matter where my argument is flawed. If it is flawed, then it is flawed. However in the course of a debate, the order in which alleged flaws are addressed does indeed matter- especially if objectors bounce back and forth between alleged flaws. It makes it impossible for any coherent debate and it is reminiscent of evasion; whether intentional or not. Is the above objection against my position (that gravity & energy is an alternative explanation) the only flaw you see in my argument? Are there any more fundamental flaws in my premises/epistemology/etc.. that you wish to point out? I ask because I do not want to back track to those after we've begun discussing the above objection. If we advance with this objection, I will not entertain a retreat back to the previous steps in my argument or sudden fashioning of straw-men.
  20. That's a separate issue. That is an objection in which you claim that my premises do not lead to my conclusion. I will be happy to address that issue, but only when a preliminary issue is taken care of once and for all. That preliminary issue is what I've been dealing with a little bit in this thread. It keeps coming back up in any and all discussion of this topic and therefore I wish to lay it to rest. That issue is the assertion that there is some fundamental epistemological error in my premises (i.e. that they are "arbitrary"). IF this is the case, then any conversation about your above objection would be utterly pointless. IF it is not the case (if my premises are epistemologically sound), then we can have a legitimate debate about your above objection. But I will not have that debate or any other form of debate, until the necessary preliminary points are clearly understood and committed to. I will not advance in the argument and leave open the possibility of an objector taking back what has already been agreed to. It is very annoying and unproductive. Therefore, I am asking objectors to state openly and clearly their epistemological standards, re-state my actual position, and demonstrate how my position violates those standards. I understand your objection and I would like to respond to it, but frankly I am tired of advancing in my argument like that and then being attacked from behind because an objector wants to go backward and negate issues which have already been established in the epistemological chain of argument. Only when an objector does the above, will I interact with them in order to either defend or advance my position.
  21. I am very familiar with the usage of the term in Objectivist literature. I simply want to make sure that we are all reading the same literature and attaching the same meaning to the same words and concepts. I am not asking for clarification. I need none. The issue is very clear to me. I have tried to make it clear to you and to the Objectivists on this forum. My argument is dismissed automatically for one of two reason (both of which are fallcies): 1) An unstated, assumed, and irrational epistemological standard is applied to my argument without being fully or consciously accepted and integrated into the rest of the objectivist worldview. Because it goes unstated, the objector is able to think that he has gotten away with it. I am simply asking for it to be stated, in the open, so that it can be rationally scrutinized and consistently held to. 2) My position is twisted to be something else (either by evasion or intention of the objector) and then measured against sound epistemological standards and obviously found wanting. That is why I have asked any objector to do the following: -State the epistemological standards I violate -Re-state my ACTUAL argument -Demonstrate how my actual argument violates those legitimate standards. So far, no one has been able to do the above. They have either held a straw man to sound epistemological standards or they have held my actual position to bogus, unstated, and inconsistent epistemological standards. Some have expertly hopped back and forth between the two in a sort of annoying dance. I wish to end the dance.
  22. But once again, this begs the question. What standards of "evidence" do you hold for that which is "worthy of your consideration"? Are these standards consistently applied to your entire worldview? And in what way does my actual position fall short of those standards?
  23. Remember though, that I have argued that the Objectivist epistemology (especially in respect to what it regards as "arbitrary") is flawed in that it is an inconsistently applied version of Empiricism. If you take the epistemological standards which you impose upon this debate, and apply them consistently to your entire worldview, you will find that no knowledge of anything beyond your immediate sensory perception is possible. If you disagree with this conclusion, simply do the following: State clearly and briefly what you mean by "arbitrary" and "evidence" and explain where my position contains "arbitrary" assertions and why what I present as evidence (my argument) should not be considered "evidence". In other words, clearly define your epistemological standards and then demonstrate why my argument falls short of those standards. I predict (based on reason, not prophecy) that either one of the following will be the case: 1) Your stated epistemological standards will be irrational (having no credibility--according to their own standards) and will not be rationally consistent with the rest of the Objectivist worldview. 2) Your stated epistemological standards will be rational and accurate but your description of my position will be erroneous (a straw-man), twisted to look as though I violate those accurate epistemological standards. If you can do the above without committing one of these two errors, you will have succeeded in gaining the right to dismiss my position. Then, and only then.
  24. Thank you Plasmatic. That is also an important detail. It's been so long, could you direct me to the post you are referring to by bluecherry?
  25. If I could shake your hand right now, I would. I acknowledge and admire your honesty and willingness to accurately understand my position. I would love to discuss this and other issues with you and others like you- but ONLY others like you. I do not have the time and patience to go in circles with those who are unwilling to attempt to interact with my actual positions. Your description of my position is accurate- not exhaustive, but accurate. I am currently dedicating the majority of my free time to my writing and the development of my own philosophical nuances, but I will attempt to interact with you (or others like you) via this forum or personal email as much as my time and interest allows. Again, Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...