Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Deism might be perfectly compatible with objectivism

Rate this topic


moot
 Share

Recommended Posts

the definition in this context, as language is only a tool to convey ideas, that is what I meant by likely in that specific context

Ok, here's how your sentence looks if I replace likely with what you meant by likely:

it is just as has either an equal chance of being true, or neither chance is known and the evidence for either is very close in strength to the point of irrelevance that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them

If there's an idea you conveyed in there, I'm missing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Since energy is not an entity but the effect of entities on other entities, what did this alleged being use to "shape" the rest of the entities out of? If the only existent is itself then you have a problem. Without a multiplicity of eternal bounded entities no non-contradictory view of the U is possible. I see no way around this. Singularities are irrational.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dang I did not catch that one I feel kind of bad now.. :D

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

Being a philosophy, Objectivism tries to lay down some principles of how we should validate our knowledge. So, it is not simply "no faith", but a little more than that. According to these underlying principles, Objectivism rejects certain types of propositions as arbitrary and therefore not knowledge. Further, any time someone tries to get a little more specific about what God is all about, that will lead to contradictions, and Objectivism holds that contradictions do not exist.

Objectivism uses its underlying epistemology while coming up with other propositions. So, if someone comes along and says, "I disagree with how you arrived at your conclusion, but I agree with your conclusion", that does not make him an Objectivist. Imagine some ancient medicine man who says: "There is an evil spirit living in your abscess", and lances it off. If this just so happens to also be the medically correct treatment, we would be wrong to call such a person's approach "perfectly compatible" with modern medicine. When we are comparing systems of knowledge, we should be comparing the systems, not just the leaf nodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here's how your sentence looks if I replace likely with what you meant by likely:

it is just as has either an equal chance of being true, or neither chance is known and the evidence for either is very close in strength to the point of irrelevance that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them

If there's an idea you conveyed in there, I'm missing it.

the point is simply that Deism in all practical sense Atheism with a difference that makes no difference and is compatable with objectivism.

Edited by moot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a philosophy, Objectivism tries to lay down some principles of how we should validate our knowledge. So, it is not simply "no faith", but a little more than that. According to these underlying principles, Objectivism rejects certain types of propositions as arbitrary and therefore not knowledge. Further, any time someone tries to get a little more specific about what God is all about, that will lead to contradictions, and Objectivism holds that contradictions do not exist.

Objectivism uses its underlying epistemology while coming up with other propositions. So, if someone comes along and says, "I disagree with how you arrived at your conclusion, but I agree with your conclusion", that does not make him an Objectivist. Imagine some ancient medicine man who says: "There is an evil spirit living in your abscess", and lances it off. If this just so happens to also be the medically correct treatment, we would be wrong to call such a person's approach "perfectly compatible" with modern medicine. When we are comparing systems of knowledge, we should be comparing the systems, not just the leaf nodes.

a god's nature is determined empirically, which means that once a contradiction arises its nature is changed to fit the new evidence

also, if one does not define god, there is never a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the only difference between round and square is the color" This is equivilent to the above.

how so? prove this without simply stating it as truth. I am only talking about practicality, the only diffenece between a blue nail and a red nail for building a wall that will not be seen is irrelevant. provided that the nails are the same in all else

Edited by moot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no need to be nasty.

Equivocation does not prove anything true, but do not commit the fallacy fallacy

here is another metaphor: is tree that has been pissed a few months ago on any different to the carpenter than one that is identical but has not been pissed on?

Edited by moot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to hear (or rather read) it, I understand that I very well may be wrong and I actually want to be proven wrong as I am playing the "devil's advocate" in this thread

padron he figure of speach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, jake... can you provide, a rational argument as to why exactly objectivism is incompatible with my definition of deism?

Can you provide a explanation of what Rands theory of definition is? If not you have your first reason why you couldn't even evaluate the title of your own thread properly.

By the way I realize you where trying to say "an irrelevent difference" earlier, but due to a lack of correct epistemlogy you were having difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...