Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

God exists

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On the other hand if you are open to the possibility of something existing outside of the realm of your perception, it heightens your sensitivity and awareness.

That's a contradiction. If something is outside of the realm of one's perception, by your own definition it would not affect one's "perception", "the sensitivity of one's perception", or "one's awareness" which is antother way of saying perception.

The reason why the contradiction managed to elude you is because you're focused on sounding good, not on making sense. But then again, I'm sure "sense" dosen't exist for you, we just imagined that it does, so keep at it.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I still missing something, what makes this un-knowable (God) so important, why aren't invisible unicorns, elves etc... given the same "they might exist" treatment as god? If this 'God' entity is un-knowable, by what standard can you derive it's existance from the countless other possibilities of 'invisible' entities?

1- The thing that "makes this un-knowable (God) so important" is obvious and we as Objectivists should be able to see it: Gods have been essential for humanity since its origin, they have been (and still are) the cause of wars, infinite pieces of art and architecture, funding and growing of towns, cities and countries, trillions of lives have been modified for better or worse by things related to Gods and religions (if you don't believe me ask to the thousands of "witches" burned alive by the Inquisition in the Middle Ages...)

The US it self was founded mostly by people running from religious persecutions and intolerance in the old Europe. So if we Objectivists can't see the importance of Gods in concrete reality... Who can?

God is essential for 90% of humanity, it can't be denied even when God doesn't "really" exists. But it's consequences do exists and are overwhelmingly important for men, even for the few of us that don't believe in Gods since we have to live in this World

2-The very concept of God is used to explain what we don't know. If something believed to be supernatural becomes scientifically explained it stops belonging to God's realm and is included in Natural realm.

There is NOTHING that is out of the laws of reality, nature, physical laws, etc. There NEVER was and there NEVER will.

What happens is that our knowledge of reality is limited so we label as "supernatural" just natural things that we can't explain yet. Every time Man discover or can explain something new, God dies a little bit.

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no need to read the book. I went to his site. There is nothing in his background that would make him a scientist, and the one page description of the book and his theories are clearly not scientific in any way. Scientists build on previous knowledge, they don't make up a new mythology and call it the new field of neurotheology.

You may read all the books you want, but as long as you don't read a few explaining what science is, you will continue to lack the ability to diferentiate between real science and fake science.

Few more words about the very concept of science:

1-My concept of "science" or "scientific" comes from the general definitions or public knowledge, it means that if you are an expert in the field, like an epistemologist or a scientific researcher, this discussion is out of my league because going into very technical details is not inside my current field of knowledge/interest and will probably be boring for everyone

2-If we stay in the general definitions of science and scientific, you will provably agree with the following I copied from Wikipedia:

"Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."

3-Unlike you I have read Alper's book and formed my own opinion about it. And my opinion is that his work and research, with all the evidence, proof, data and logic analysis he shows in the book is scientific (which is not synonym of "infallible").

Science has never been "infallible", all the time new theories replace old ones proven to be wrong or inaccurate.

Finally one of the things that makes some knowledge/research "scientific" is certainly the approval of other peers in the same field, but as Rand's life proves, some times it can be hard to get approval of the "official" mainstream academic circle, specially when you are proposing innovative theories

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing that has ever been proven, has ever been proven to be Magic.

"Amen!" :)

A few days ago, I was in my local Hallmark store to buy some stationary and they had a Christian radio station playing in the background. This man had called in with his example of a "miracle." He had been diagnosed with hepatitis C several years previously, but at his most recent checkup, his new doctor could find no trace of it. The caller started bawling like a baby and praising God for this "miracle."

Gee, how miraculous the lab screwed up his first test results. :P

The whole segment made me laugh out loud in the quiet store. I have no idea if anyone knew what I was laughing at, but I kinda hoped they did. They have the right to play that crap in their business, but I also have the right to laugh hysterically at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...