Renee Katz

LOL! Did you make that up!?

I agree with you, but I was just saying that Rand thought there was a special stuff that makes consciousness.

That article is not very good. It is basically the old teological argument, or the argument from design, which has been refuted thousands of times in many different ways. Basically the whole argument rests on the assumption that there is no possible way that information and complexity can arise through natural forces, and no theist has ever proven that and they never will. There's no point in even responding to the other stuff. It isn't very intellectual. But I'd just like to say that there IS a conflict between reason and faith, because you have to delimit reason in some area and aspect in order to have any need for faith at all. Insofar as faith is a means of knowledge and not just some other word for "hope" or "trust," faith is inherently irrational. And if you want the definitive book on the atheism vs theism debate, go here: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against...8745&sr=8-1

Rand talks about this in Ayn Rand Answers, I believe. I remember reading that she did not think that all of existence was either matter or spirit, but that it was both. Coupled with her distaste for materialism, and I would say that her philosophy was definitely not any kind of monism or physicalism.

Well, this is what I found in the chapter on reality in 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' pertaining to 'has vs. is': "Ayn Rand offers a new formulation of this axiom: existence is identity. She does not say 'existence has identity' - which might suggest that identity is a feature separable from existence (as a coat of paint is separable from the house that has it). The point is that to be is to be something. Existence and identity are indivisible; either implies the other. If something exists, then something exists; and if there is a something, then there is a something. The fundamental fact cannot be broken in two." So, basically, existence is - not has - identity, because to exist is to exist as something and not nothing. And I don't know how you would go about proving that; it's one of those self-evident facts of reality, you know. . . On atheism: I assume you are familiar with and understand the idea of the Primacy of Existence that is also discussed in the aforementioned chapter. If so, I am curious as to how do you reconcile it with the belief in a deity!

Yes, Silverman's writings are really interesting and thought-provoking; though I don't know how you would get in touch with him. There is another article of his--which I found at Objectivist Atheology--on the eternality of the universe: http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/e...aluniverse.html (What really bothers me is that I can't seem to get to the index of this site--if there is one.) Incidentally, I think the arguments for the eternality of the universe proposed in this essay may hint at an answer to DAC's questions. In The Eternality of the Universe, Alex Sliverman argues against the false dichotomy of the universe either having a beginning and ending in time, or being infinite in time, by recognizing that this view presupposes that the concept "time" is even applicable to the universe in the first place. He uses the analogy of applying the concept of length to a mental event like emotions; he says emotions have no length, but it obviously does not follow from this that they are "infinite in length." He then applies this same principle to the issue of time and the universe (length is to emotions as time is to the universe--i.e., simply not applicable). So then the question is: Is it a valid analogy; and can we say the same regarding size and the universe as well?

I think I understand this now. Oh yes, Objectivism and its application to sciences like physics and cosmology are absolutely fascinating to me! I just read it; I found the section on space, void and vacuum especially illuminating. He he, I guess I would be a "student of Objectivism" as well--and I've only been studying Objectivism for about a year now. But, from what I do understand of the philosophy, I agree with it.

If the big bang theory is correct, doesn't that mean that the universe had a beginning in time? Doesn't that mean that the universe (all that exists) will someday not exist? Maybe you have a different concept of the big bang, but that is the assumption I'm under. Doesn't Objectivism hold that all things that exist--"primaries," as they are called--are composed of *matter*? If so, does that mean "space" doesn't really exist; since it is the *absence* of matter; the *lack* of objects?

Hi everyone, I have a question regarding the idea of an expanding universe. . . I have read a few places that Objectivists deny the claim that the universe is expanding, (e.g., Anton Thorn's Objectivist Atheology page) because the universe--being all that exists--wouldn't have anything to "expand" into; because nothing exists outside the universe. Well, my question is this: Scientists say there is directly observable evidence of galaxies moving farther and farther away from eachother, so when Objetivists reject the idea that the universe is expanding, do they mean that we DON'T really have evidence of these galaxies moving away from eachother; or do they mean that whatever the galaxies are expanding into is PART OF THE UNIVERSE (since it obviously exists)?