Deism might be perfectly compatible with objectivism

[brian0918]

my best definition would be a sentient being of any composition that influenced or shaped the universe for either as specific end or as a means to a specific end, which is not known to myself

Sentience implies a consciousness, which implies a brain, which implies physical matter, which implies existence (of the universe). So, a "non-physical sentient being" is a contradiction. [Also see my next post below]

Edited March 24, 2010 by brian0918

[freestyle]

... does objectivism necessitate atheism, or does it only require a lack of faith (assuming that Deism lacks faith and Atheism does not require it)

With consideration of the totality of knowledge available to human kind, yes, Objectivism necessitates atheism. Objectively. Properly understood as, "without God," there is no logical, rational, scientific or any other foundational premise to assert the existence of "God". If there were, don't you think these demonstrable points would be the subject of this debate by now?

It seems that some people get hung up on whether or not an Objectivist could consider himself an agnostic. As most people commonly understand that word, it makes sense why they might think that could be a legitimate Objectivist stance. They say, "If you admit that we don't know something, then you cannot discount it." That seems logical to many, but it is not logic. It is definitely not Objectivist logic. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism does not consider the arbitrary.

An agnostic is someone who wants to evade the question all together. If they don't "feel" like logic or reason provides them with a satisfactory answer, they choose to "feel" comfortable by claiming ignorance. Objectivism rejects all ignorance... but especially intentional ignorance.

She doesn't consider the arbitrary because she properly defines and understands the meaning of arbitrary. For the same reason you don't seriously consider the implications and possibility that "The Creator" is an alien scientist named Artie who created our existence in a petri dish, she didn't spend time pondering whether or not Artie's birth certificate actually proves his real name is Godfrey.

(When we all see a gigantic metal tweezer grab the moon and move it out of earth's orbit, we will then have some more to discuss.)

Edited March 24, 2010 by freestyle

[brian0918]

Notions of God the Creator Being - which are common among deists - are contradictory on multiple grounds:

"A consciousness conscious only of itself, existing in non-existence, acts in non-time, to create existence, time, and objects of which to be aware."

There are at least four contradictions here, all related: consciousness requires objects of which to be conscious, existence implies existence, action implies motion through time, and creation requires all of those: existence, action over time, and physical objects to manipulate.

Edited March 24, 2010 by brian0918

[freestyle]

my best definition would be a sentient being of any composition that influenced or shaped the universe for either as specific end or as a means to a specific end, which is not known to myself

If (more precisely, "when") you deduce through logic that there is exactly ZERO evidence for the existence of a specific "God" defined as such, will you propose an alternate definition and repeat the process?

P.S. Artie (our alien scientist) qualifies perfectly into your definition above.

[moot]

Notions of God the Creator Being - which are common among deists - are contradictory on multiple grounds:

"A consciousness conscious only of itself, existing in non-existence, acts in non-time, to create existence, time, and objects of which to be aware."

There are at least four contradictions here, all related: consciousness requires objects of which to be conscious, existence implies existence, action implies motion through time, and creation requires all of those: existence, action over time, and physical objects to manipulate.

Not all deists believe this to be true, you are over generalizing, the deism I refer to does not make any of those assumptions

also, sentience does not necessarily require a physical brain because all matter is made of vibrations set at specific frequencies (learned this on Nova), how do you know that an energy being vibrating at a specific frequency is not sentient (cannot perceive)

[moot]

some of the evidence for such a being is, the ordered nature of the universe (all matter). while it does not conclusively prove or necessitate a god's existence, it does provide an inductive case, which is equally strong to that of an atheist.

[moot]

2. Belief that the nature of God is abstract and generally incomprehensible which puts it beyond definition for humanity at this time. Furthermore, human language is limited and inadequate to define God; however, man can use Reason to theorize and speculate on what this possible nature is.

[freestyle]

some of the evidence for such a being is, the ordered nature of the universe (all matter). while it does not conclusively prove or necessitate a god's existence, it does provide an inductive case, which is equally strong to that of an atheist.

I'm trying to be fair, but reading this makes me think your heart is not in this argument.

That statement doesn't come close to any scientific definition of "evidence". The burden of proof CANNOT be placed on the atheist. If you cannot accept that fact of reality then any further discussion is pointless. (I can easily show this to you, btw. Show me an acceptable evidence that the entity [fi_*4eP*N] does NOT exist.)

What is the distinction you're making that "order" is an inductive case for "god's existence" as opposed to a case "pointing toward" the existence and operation of the scientific principle known as cerpicviation?

This can go on forever if you're not willing to commit to defining terms and standing by those definitions.

Edited March 25, 2010 by freestyle

[RationalBiker]

some of the evidence for such a being is, the ordered nature of the universe (all matter).

The existence of this "ordered nature" does not provide evidence of it's origin, only of its existence (forgetting for the moment the presumption that comes with the terminology "ordered").

[Greebo]

Did I miss it or has nobody explained yet to Moot why the arbitrary is of no cognitive value?

[freestyle]

Did I miss it or has nobody explained yet to Moot why the arbitrary is of no cognitive value?

I mentioned it in #77

Edited March 25, 2010 by freestyle

[brian0918]

Not all deists believe this to be true

I didn't claim they did.

the deism I refer to does not make any of those assumptions

I dealt with "the deism you refer to" in the previous post.

all matter is made of vibrations set at specific frequencies (learned this on Nova), how do you know that an energy being vibrating at a specific frequency is not sentient (cannot perceive)

Matter and energy have specific physical definitions. If there ever is a sentient superstring, it will exist and be physical.

Edited March 25, 2010 by brian0918

[Greebo]

I mentioned it in #77

It might require more clarification - specifically with regard to how cognitively the arbitrary can neither be true NOR false because it has no grounding in reality to begin with. One cannot prove it because there is no evidence for it. One cannot disprove it because there is no evidence against it. It is a null value - cognitively useless.

A further point for moot to consider: IF one grants logical value to an arbitrary concept, then to be consistent, one must grant equal logical value to ALL arbitrary concepts. Thus not only God, but Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Quazi Purple Sky Dragon and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are ALL equally valid - one cannot prove they do not exist (not even Santa), and so they all MIGHT exist.

Once one admits the arbitrary, the flood gates are opened and the most absurd arbitrary one can imagine - for example every human being actually has an invisible cockroach clinging to their backs, but they tap into our cerebellums and prevent us from detecting them - must be given equal plausibility. Hey, you can't prove there isn't a brain block in your head stopping you from realizing there's a bug on your back.

At this point one may as well simply say "Hail Xenu" and go get one's theta levels tested.

[Jake_Ellison]

It might require more clarification - specifically with regard to how cognitively the arbitrary can neither be true NOR false because it has no grounding in reality to begin with. One cannot prove it because there is no evidence for it. One cannot disprove it because there is no evidence against it.

There can be. The absence of evidence is usually evidence of absence. But the guy isn't even trying to state something arbitrary, so that we can identify to him the evidence that arbitrary thing is supposed to leave and fails to, thus proving it doesn't exist. He's keeping his statements purposefully vague, and reliant on words which have no specific meanings in the context he uses them in. In fact, he's saying that his claim cannot even be spoken in the English language.

[moot]

I admit my arguments are meant to be vague. From the deist literature I have read, most deists simply believe in a "x" factor or God that they ascribe the trait of thought and the ordering of the universe to. they make no claims as to the nature of this being, only stating that evidence points towards it existing and that it is either more or as likely to exist than not exist.

after this is established they feel we can begin to add "color" to God

[moot]

Also, what I am trying to explain is that it is just as reasonable for a god by whose nature would not leave evidence and is bound to natural laws to exist as such a being to not exist and our choice to deny its existence is just a whim or personal preference. granted the burden of proof is on the one trying to convince, but in the same breath on should look at both objectively before coming to a conclusion and one conclusion is just as good as the other.

[moot]

The existence of this "ordered nature" does not provide evidence of it's origin, only of its existence (forgetting for the moment the presumption that comes with the terminology "ordered").

something cannot possibly come from nothing, correct? is it more likely that the being I just described ordered things, or they came to order themselves. it is only a preference which of the two we choose

[RationalBiker]

something cannot possibly come from nothing, correct?

If that is necessarily true, where did the first something come from? Maybe the Hadron Super Collider will help us understand this more at some point.

Saying "ordered" still requires presumption, even if you say something is more likely than something else while still lacking evidence.

Edited March 25, 2010 by RationalBiker

[moot]

ordered as in existing in the coherent manner it does, planets in their current alignments

some deists would say it means the creation of the laws of nature, but I understand that that would be an impossibility

[RationalBiker]

some deists would say it means the creation of the laws of nature, but I understand that that would be an impossibility

Hence invoking your namesake?

The moderation point I was trying to make earlier is that you have created a topic where any discussion with you requires grasping at the concept of sturglybarfleletbets. Although there exists no evidence of the existence sturglybarfletbets, much less a conceptual understanding of what sturglybarfleletbets is, you are suggesting that it is just as reasonable to accept the existence of sturglybarfleletbets as to not accept the existence of sturglybarfleletbets. This is not true, it is not equally reasonable to assert the existence of something over nothing when the evidence, or lack thereof, points to nothing, particularly when there isn't even a derivable concept for that something being asserted. No coherent conversation can be made of such ideas.

[moot]

I agree, however, if it were said that if a deist held that understanding, then could he not be an objectvist? I think that after enough time he would come to drop such a fancy, as none of his peers have it

[Dante]

something cannot possibly come from nothing, correct? is it more likely that the being I just described ordered things, or they came to order themselves. it is only a preference which of the two we choose

So instead of the universe always having been orderly (as you understand the word), we have some being whose nature and thought processes have always been orderly, bringing the universe to order. Your scenario simply posits an extra level of order which is completely lacking in empirical support.

[RationalBiker]

I agree, however, if it were said that if a deist held that understanding, then could he not be an objectvist? I think that after enough time he would come to drop such a fancy, as none of his peers have it

If he held that understanding, he would not be a deist.

Edit: correct "would not".

Edited March 25, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Dante]

I agree, however, if it were said that if a deist held that understanding, then could he not be an objectvist? I think that after enough time he would come to drop such a fancy, as none of his peers have it

If the deist holds that understanding and is still a deist, then he is admitting the arbitrary into the realm of cognition, as others have argued. This is not consistent with Objectivism.

[RationalBiker]

If it helps, reading some information from ITOE and The Philosophy of Objectivism on "arbitrary" may help further explain why such views cannot be consistent with Objectivism.

Edited March 25, 2010 by RationalBiker