Jacob86

It is baffling to me that Objectivists are incapable of seeing the horrendous error in equating "inability" to "ability" and "weakness" to "strength".

Your argument basically says that in order for a being to be all powerful, He must have the "power" to possess a weakness. In order for Him to be able to do all things, He must have an inability. This is so absurdly altruistic. Strength does NOT require weakness. Ability does not require inability.

The "ability" to posess an inability is NOT an ability. The "ability" to be weak is NOT a strength. It is a weakness.

An omnipotent being could not do any of the things listed in all of your silly objections because all of those things are weaknesses, inabilities, deprivations. An omnipotent being is not "able" to be non-omnipotent; and the inability to be non-omnipotent is NOT a weakness, but a strenght. The inability to be weak is NOT a weakness.
If you wish to argue otherwise, then I cannot fathom how you can separate yourself from the envious, sniveling, altruistic, greatness-haters running rampant in the world.

No. The only way to not be coerced is to have an identity which is capable of being free to some degree from the total causal effects of outside action.

Yes, causality is identity in action, but we are attempting to inquire about the Identity/Nature of Man in this discussion. Freedom from coercion for Man does not mean that he must be free from HIS identity. It means that his identity must be such that he is from from the coercive effects of OTHER causal actions to some degree.

No. The only way to not be coerced is to have an identity which is capable of being free to some degree from the total causal effects of outside action.

Yes, causality is identity in action, but we are attempting to inquire about the Identity/Nature of Man in this discussion. Freedom from coercion for Man does not mean that he must be free from HIS identity. It means that his identity must be such that he is from from the coercive effects of OTHER causal actions to some degree.

Please revisit the extensive discussion on epistemology earlier in this thread-- OR if you'd like to bring it up again, I'd be happy to begin a new thread on epistemology.
You are assuming a faulty epistemological principle that the ONLY method of verification is through empirical observation and that apart from empirical observation, NO proposition can be known to be true or false with certainty.

*Notice, I emboldened the categorical words above ("only" and "no")- these are the key words which make the assumption false. Replace "only" with "one" and "no" with "some", and I would totally agree.

Yes- you are stumbling onto something important. It's basic. But important.
At the end, you said "if we know that we can know something, that's also knowledge.." This is true.
Now, in order to be fully convinced that knowledge is possible, assume the opposite position:
"if we know that we CANNOT know something, that's also knowledge". Do you see how this position (that knowledge is impossible) is self-refuting?
This should help you to see why the ability to have knowledge is also axiomatic.

The "agnostics of truth" try to say "we cannot know anything for sure", while assuming that they CAN know THAT for sure.
In their guise of "humility" they are being extremely arrogant. They are implicitly saying that THEY ALONE have access to objective knowledge and that everyone else is "blind and confused".
If you've ever heard the analogy of the "elephant and blind men" this becomes very evident.

Please revisit the extensive discussion on epistemology earlier in this thread-- OR if you'd like to bring it up again, I'd be happy to begin a new thread on epistemology.
You are assuming a faulty epistemological principle that the ONLY method of verification is through empirical observation and that apart from empirical observation, NO proposition can be known to be true or false with certainty.

*Notice, I emboldened the categorical words above ("only" and "no")- these are the key words which make the assumption false. Replace "only" with "one" and "no" with "some", and I would totally agree.

Any attempt to treat reality as split or dichotomous can only result in negative consequences.
The "theologians" who are content to believe that which is set against Science are conceding that what they believe are fairytales and that is how there work should be treated.
The scientists who are content to leave morality/ethics/etc.. to "matters of faith" are conceding that they believe that morality/ethics is non-real, non-important, and non-objective... and they will cause trouble (like Dr. Stadler in Atlas Shrugged)

The key (as always) is Philosophy...or a commitment to knowing objective reality and having an entire, coherent, and comprehensive worldview.
Any of those "theologians" that are rationally convinced that God exists would do well to study philosophy and to understand that IF God exists, then He is not afraid of Science.
Likewise, the Scientists who don't care about morality would do well to study philosophy and understand that without a proper moral code, they and their studies would be covered in blood.
Additionally, I think far too many scientist ignore philosophy at the peril of their own studies-- they don't have a proper philosophical (i.e. logical) foundation and so they waste a lot of time and energy in search of proof for irrational theories.

So... did you have a response to my argument, or not?

It certainly does, however the individual you are talking to is not an Objectivist, and has been going in circles debating others for the last 40 pages. Do not take the content of his posts as indicative of the content you should expect from others.

Theres quite a bit of epistemological assumptions loaded into all of this, but I'd rather get to the meat of the issue below.
Suffice it to say, I am obviously not here saying:
"Hey guys, wouldn't it be neato if God existed!", so please refrain from the annoying anti-intellectual accusations.
I know many Theists are guilty of it, but I'd appreciate a fair evaluation of MY argument- not theirs.


And I could just as easily say that people run away from the knowledge that there is a God because they are deathly afraid of the implications (some of the fear being warranted, some coming from severe mis-understandings/ false assumptions).
We can accuse each other of basing our beliefs on Subjectivism until we're blue in the face. I'd rather skip that and prove it out.


My goodness. You have described much more about God (in your "God Particle") than I have had the opportunity to get around to in this thread! It's true that there must be something (whether God or "God Particle") which is the source of all other things that ever existed or could exist, which has no "life span", etc...
Let us assume, momentarily, that it is a Particle (an non-personal, non-intelligent, non-volitional thing).
When this particle acted resulting in the creation of other things, did it do so accidentally or on purpose? In other words, if it is the source of all other things and all other motion, then its action could not have been a result of something outside of it acting upon it (nothing else existed to act upon it). Its action also could not have come from some "smaller" particle within it, for then we run into the same problem with this "smaller" particle. What caused it to act?
The action must have come from its own nature as a whole-- meaning its nature must be such that it can act of its own accord-- meaning that it must be volitional-- meaning that it's not just a particle, its a "person" in the sense that it has consciousness and values (which are necessary prerequisites for volition).


Again, that would be the point of this thread. Let us find out.

No. A is A. There are no contradiction. If one understands that there is a God, this idea must simply be integrated without contradiction into the rest of ones knowledge... just like with anything else.


Haha! You have no problem understanding the stupidity of asking this question about your God Particle, but then you fail to understand the silliness in asking it about God.
We are both agreed that there must be some super complex thing which is the source of all things and which, itself, is eternal and thus has no answer to "where did it come from?".
You say its a God Particle. I say its God.


Again, I am obviously not on here arguing for a dismissal of any rational evidence in favor of faith or for an irrational acceptance of an "absurd conclusion".
So I would really appreciate it if you'd drop the straw man, ad hominem stuff. Its been done a million times on this thread and it is VERY old.

Physical- made of matter, which is a concept referring to particles, sub-particles, atoms, and molecules.

It's true that I started the argument with a definition. But is the definition true? If it is, then it is based in reality. If the definition is flawed, then that is the problem. But there is no problem in starting with a definition like that as long as the definition is accurate.




I am making a claim that there are two categories for action: reaction & volition. If an object is reactionary by nature ("identity) then it only acts as a reaction to something else. If an object is volitional by nature ("identity") then it can act "of its own accord" rather than as a reaction.
I place the billiard ball, and rocks, and molecules, and atoms, and every non-volitional thing in the first category-- all of these act as a reaction to prior action. They must since they are not volitional. Their IDENTITY/ NATURE is such that they require the causal influence of outside action in order to act themselves.


I'm not sure if I fully understand your question here, but I would like to say something concerning the "catalog" supposition. It seems that you are leaning heavily toward empiricism (something is only true if it can be observed and tested by your senses). Notice that you cannot catalog all existents as having identity, but you know that all existents have identity. You cannot catalog all instances of "2a+2a=4a", but you know that it is universally true.
There are certain things that you can know without having to study them empirically (or "catalog" them).


If a thing is eternal and moves entirely of its own accord (not as a reaction to anything), then it is an eternal volitional being, so yes, it would be a "God".


Yes, but you will not find the causation if you ONLY examine the identity of ONE of the objects involved. The causation does not come from the single identity of one object alone, but rather from the nature of the interaction between the identieS of all things involved.

I agree with Eiuol. "Physical" was used correctly, "entity" was not. Instead, to be consistent Tanaka should call them "existents" as he did later in the same post. ("Attributes" is more specific and also correct.) The ability to affect and be effected by physical entities is what it means "to exist".

But that is nitpicking. Tanaka's point that ' "something more", and "non-physical" are meaningless phrases used by people trying to escape the need for actual evidence when making a claim. They're not concepts referring to actual existents' is valid. Jacob86's s stubborn clinging to such 'anti-concepts', concepts that are invalid due to having no referent, make it frustrating to deal with him. I could respond to his earlier replies to me, but it would be useless.

A) For anyone who doesn't know, my posts do not represent "official Objectivist positions"..haha... I am a Theistic admirer of Objectivism.

I didn't say that the mind is "free from the physical world", I said that it must be free from the deterministic cause and effects of the physical world. However, by this, I do mean that the mind must be not entirely physical.
Yes, I hold that there is a "Super Nature" ("nature" here meaning the physical universe), but please do not read into this all the ridiculous and fanciful musings of people in the past. I do not hold to a soul/body dichotomy or mind/brain dichotomy or any other such dichotomy... So don't object as though I do.

C) "Nothing is free from the physical world". That is an assertion- do you have reason for it? I am submitting reason to believe that the mind (in part) IS "free from the physical world" and that this must be the case if we have volition and the ability to reason objectively. Do you have an objection against my reasoning??

A) For anyone who doesn't know, my posts do not represent "official Objectivist positions"..haha... I am a Theistic admirer of Objectivism.

I didn't say that the mind is "free from the physical world", I said that it must be free from the deterministic cause and effects of the physical world. However, by this, I do mean that the mind must be not entirely physical.
Yes, I hold that there is a "Super Nature" ("nature" here meaning the physical universe), but please do not read into this all the ridiculous and fanciful musings of people in the past. I do not hold to a soul/body dichotomy or mind/brain dichotomy or any other such dichotomy... So don't object as though I do.

C) "Nothing is free from the physical world". That is an assertion- do you have reason for it? I am submitting reason to believe that the mind (in part) IS "free from the physical world" and that this must be the case if we have volition and the ability to reason objectively. Do you have an objection against my reasoning??

A) For anyone who doesn't know, my posts do not represent "official Objectivist positions"..haha... I am a Theistic admirer of Objectivism.

I didn't say that the mind is "free from the physical world", I said that it must be free from the deterministic cause and effects of the physical world. However, by this, I do mean that the mind must be not entirely physical.
Yes, I hold that there is a "Super Nature" ("nature" here meaning the physical universe), but please do not read into this all the ridiculous and fanciful musings of people in the past. I do not hold to a soul/body dichotomy or mind/brain dichotomy or any other such dichotomy... So don't object as though I do.

C) "Nothing is free from the physical world". That is an assertion- do you have reason for it? I am submitting reason to believe that the mind (in part) IS "free from the physical world" and that this must be the case if we have volition and the ability to reason objectively. Do you have an objection against my reasoning??

Pascal's wager is horrible. The theist thinks he can fool God with a pretense of faith, which can't work by any Abrahamic account of an omniscient God. An Objectivist surrenders his certainty founded on perception for a lottery ticket, for no justification or benefit at all. Any middle of the road agnostic approaching either theism or Objectivism with Pascal's wager pre-emptively sabotages any possible benefit he could gotten from that system. The wager is actually subversive and must encourage through its explicit hypocrisy a growing skepticism and nihilism over time.

edit: And from reading up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager Pascal's frame of mind in composing the wager was in fact that of a skeptic unhappy with himself.

Harris rejects free-will because he seems to realize (rightly) that it necessitates a supernatural soul.

Objectivism (rightly) insists on free-will because of its logical necessity to reason.. but conveniently ignores the logical necessity of supernature to free-will.

I don't want to turn this into an argument for God per se.. but I would like to ask how Objectivists explain the possibility of free will without a supernatural mind/soul. How can free will (and therefore reason) be possible if Man's mind/soul is not free (i.e. distinct) from physical cause and effect?

I am saying that in order for the mind/soul (by soul here I mean what Rand referred to regarding desires, values, volition, etc..), its nature must be such that it is not entirely effected by physical causes. If it is entirely effected by physical causes, then it is not free and thoughts/ideas are no more significant than a fart or a belch in their correspondence to reality.


They (physical causes) don't prevent you from the ability to do those things. We both agree that Man is free and able to do these things. I am suggesting that this implies something about the nature of Man's faculties- that they are not entirely physical. Because physical causes do not prevent you from accurately observing reality, therefore your faculty which does observe reality (your mind) cannot be entirely effected by physical causes. If it were effected by physical causes, you would not be able to know that you are accurately observing reality-- all of your thoughts in your head would be nothing more than chemical reactions with no more significance then any other chemical reactions.

Harris rejects free-will because he seems to realize (rightly) that it necessitates a supernatural soul.

Objectivism (rightly) insists on free-will because of its logical necessity to reason.. but conveniently ignores the logical necessity of supernature to free-will.

I don't want to turn this into an argument for God per se.. but I would like to ask how Objectivists explain the possibility of free will without a supernatural mind/soul. How can free will (and therefore reason) be possible if Man's mind/soul is not free (i.e. distinct) from physical cause and effect?

I am saying that in order for the mind/soul (by soul here I mean what Rand referred to regarding desires, values, volition, etc..), its nature must be such that it is not entirely effected by physical causes. If it is entirely effected by physical causes, then it is not free and thoughts/ideas are no more significant than a fart or a belch in their correspondence to reality.


They (physical causes) don't prevent you from the ability to do those things. We both agree that Man is free and able to do these things. I am suggesting that this implies something about the nature of Man's faculties- that they are not entirely physical. Because physical causes do not prevent you from accurately observing reality, therefore your faculty which does observe reality (your mind) cannot be entirely effected by physical causes. If it were effected by physical causes, you would not be able to know that you are accurately observing reality-- all of your thoughts in your head would be nothing more than chemical reactions with no more significance then any other chemical reactions.

Grames, you should write a book on Oist epistemology, Id buy it.

I apologize for the Hiatus. I've been fairly busy lately, but I will continue to respond as I have time.


This again? Lol. You know that I agree that existence exists. I've also labored to show how this does not answer the question. You wouldn't say "existence exists" to a scientist asking questions about the cause of a particular existent acting the way that it does. So why do you say it in a philosophy discussion which talks about the causes of non-volitional entities acting in general. You know I am not asking for an explanation to existence as such but rather to the action for non-volitional existents. In respect to answering the question at hand, the axiom is irrelevant here. So please, choose one of those options or suggest a better alternative which actually addresses the issue.



I apologize but I am not super familiar with the logical notation of arguments. I have, however, explained and re-explained my reasoning multiple times.
My position assumes the following:
1) The law of identity- entities only act according to their nature
2) The impossibility of an infinite regress
3) Entities either act as a reaction or volitionally
Do you dispute any of the above?
From these assumptions (which I think are more than warranted), my position observes that there is action in the universe.
This action is either reactionary or volitional. If it is reactionary, then the prior action which it rests upon is either reactionary or volitional. No matter how far you want to go back, there must be a beginning- meaning there must be a volitional action which gave rise to reactionary action.




You tell me? Were the masses "placed" there? If so, yes..prior action was involved (volitional action in this case). Were they caused to be there as a result of something else acting upon them? If so, yes.. prior reactionary action was involved. If no, did they spring into existence magically?


Ok... and I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't see the relevance. Regardless of the many different types of energy and action, it is all either reactionary or volitional...or it violates the law of identity. Take your pick.

Harris rejects free-will because he seems to realize (rightly) that it necessitates a supernatural soul.

Objectivism (rightly) insists on free-will because of its logical necessity to reason.. but conveniently ignores the logical necessity of supernature to free-will.

I don't want to turn this into an argument for God per se.. but I would like to ask how Objectivists explain the possibility of free will without a supernatural mind/soul. How can free will (and therefore reason) be possible if Man's mind/soul is not free (i.e. distinct) from physical cause and effect?

AGAIN, you are using "existence" here as synonymous with "physical reality" which begs the question. I do accept existence as a starting point (in fact I insist that it MUST be the starting point). But "existence" requires an existent! lol. There is no existence apart from existents. I am arguing that there must be an irreducible starting point which IS an existent and which is also conscious since a non-conscious existent cannot START anything.
It's really fairly simple.

Was it Rand who said something to the effect of "the hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everyone has decided to ignore"...?