Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Even one entity might have an infinite number of causal interactions, assuming endless "time." Each cause does not require a separate entity.

Mindy

Interaction presupposes multiplicity. "Interacts" with what? And "endless time" is simply another way of saying that there has always been multiple entities interacting. That's what "time" refers to metaphysically without the "psychological" standard implicit in the concept.

As for "infinite" actualities I'm not sure there's much more for me to say. It s like arguing that everything has identity with folks who think that's not possible to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interaction presupposes multiplicity. "Interacts" with what? And "endless time" is simply another way of saying that there has always been multiple entities interacting. That's what "time" refers to metaphysically without the "psychological" standard implicit in the concept.

As for "infinite" actualities I'm not sure there's much more for me to say. It s like arguing that everything has identity with folks who think that's not possible to know.

I didn't express myself well. Apologies. File it in the round file.

Mindy

Edited by Mindy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I know the thread has moved well beyond the OP, but I didn't see anyone make this particular criticism.

It is basically the Cosmological Argument with a few "twists" or commonly missed observations:

Every effect must have a Cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an "Uncaused Cause" which in a sense has the power of existence within itself.

The first hurdle that any deductive argument for the existence of God has to pass is the validity test. So, let's set this up formally:

(1) Every effect must have a cause.

(2) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

-----------

(3) Therefore, there is an uncaused cause.

Is the argument deductively valid? Well, no. It's not in the form of a syllogism or modus ponens, or some other valid form; it's just some sentences strung together. There could well be hidden assumptions here that we're not seeing, so I think it's reasonable to withhold belief until we get clearer on what this argument actually is.

Why not just use the Kalam Cosmological Argument? It's deductively valid, its premises are better supported than yours (IMO), and it seems to be basically what you were trying to say (also IMO).

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

(2) The universe began to exist.

-----------

(3) So, the universe has a cause.

(2) in the Kalam is supported by the argument from the impossibility of an infinite regress, which is why I suspect that this is what you were getting at, and it has supplementary support from cosmology, which is why I think it's better supported.

There's a lot of literature about that argument. If it's roughly equivalent to your intent, you can just read up on it to disabuse yourself of any belief in its soundness. Or if your argument is closer to a different version of the cosmological argument, like the Leibnizian, then you could read up on that instead.

At any rate, I think you need to express your argument in some deductively valid way.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both presentations sidestep the same issue.

There are likely more varients, but to delineate to the presentations at hand consider these three for the moment.

"The eternal God is thy refuge"

"GOD: there is no other god besides Him, the Living, the Eternal."

"Matter/Energy can neither be created nor destroyed"

The mystics claim that everything that exists must have a cause, and then contradict themselves in stating that their creator exists causelessly. The hidden assumptiton is that you won't catch the application of eternal after the implicit denial of it.

Physics does not state that matter/energy is eternal directly. If it can neither be created nor destroyed, it is, ergo, eternal.

Or as eloquently put here,

"To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause."

Objectivism would have you introspect and consider the source of the content of consciousness

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

It is the application of this principle of the Primacy of Existence which establishes the foundation for you to integrate your understanding of this and all other matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

Existence contains all that can be identified. But only parts of it can be identified – the whole can only be an axiom, because no one mind can hold sufficient complexity to model the whole, as the minimum reliable representation of Existence is ... Existence itself! Any representation that accounts anything less that the whole of Existence is insufficient, and Existence as a whole cannot be modeled. If this is not clear, consider that, at minimum, to come up with a complete representation of Existence would require one mind to encompass the contents of all minds, as well as all possible knowledge of the material world. That is clearly not possible, by the law of identity, since each individual can only have access to their experience bank, including the ideas they obtain from others via concrete experiences such as hearing sounds or reading strings of symbols.

Another way of saying this is that any portion of Existence changes state, has a duration of integrity as a functioning entity, has a beginning, and an end, operates between two terminals of time with one-way evolution and/or decay. Existence as a whole, which is the limit of any sequence of containment structures (i.e., entities containing lower-order entities, as an atom contains subatomic entities), does not have a beginning, nor an end. Existence is eternal.

Asking for the beginning of an eternal thing is a contradiction in terms. Asking for the cause of something that is eternal is, effectively, attempting to elevate the law of causality above the law of Existence, i.e., to make causality prior to existence. But causality is a corollary of Existence, not a determinant of it. You can’t validate the law of causality without assuming Existence.

One thing that I find helpful is to define Universe in terms of Man’s grasp of it. I like Bucky Fuller’s definition best based on my experience so far:

“Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated nonsimultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.” (Synergetics, Volume 1, by R. Buckminster Fuller, section 301.10)

As Fuller goes on to explain,

“Our definition of Universe provides for the undiscovered and for the yet-to- be discovered. Do not worry about that farthermost star which is yet to be consciously apprehended by any human being. Do not think we have not provided for those physical or chemical phenomena as yet not observed and recorded by human or mechanical sensing devices. The existence of such phenomena may not have even been postulated, but they can all be accommodated by our definition of Universe. Because we start with whole Universe we have left out nothing: There is no multiplication by amplification of, or addition to, eternally regenerative Universe; there is only multiplication by division. The farthermost star and the most unfamiliar physical phenomena are all accommodated by further arithmetical subdividing of our aggregate of overlapping experiences. Nothing could have been left out when you start with whole Universe.”

And, to pre-empt consternation at this radical definition (which is nonetheless correct):

“People say to me, "I think you have left something out of your definition of Universe." That statement becomes part of my experience. But never will anyone disprove my working hypothesis because it will take experimental proof to satisfy me, and the experiment will always be part of the experience of my definition, ergo included. This gives me great power because my definition of Universe includes not only the physical but also the metaphysical experiences of Universe, which the physicists thought they had to exclude from their more limited definition of the finite physical portion of Universe. The metaphysical embraces all the weightless experiences of thought, including all the mathematics and the organization of data regarding all the physical experiments, science itself being metaphysical.”

Now THAT is what I am talking about! And that is, to my understanding, in tune with Ayn’s ideas of staying grounded in what an actually be demonstrated by experience, but not restricting Existence only to the physical world. In Fuller’s view, as in Rand’s, Existence to me is only that which I have experience directly and/or correlated by communication with others (Fuller calls it Universe, but it is tantamount to Rand’s Existence as I hope you gleaned from the quotes).

What does this have to do with God? Well, if God does exist, then Existence is the only identifiable object of our experience (an axiom is still an object) which can be identifiably associated with God, i.e., if God is a conscious volitional entity as described in all religious traditions, then Existence is the “body of God” in a strict sense.

The question of God then comes down to: is there a motive force, i.e., mind behind all the material, which acts through material Existence as its means to some purpose?

The problem is, if such God existed, then it would be eternal – because Existence, its body, is eternal. But an eternal entity is not conditioned by the alternative of life and death, can hold no morals therefore, and would be akin to Ayn’s indestructible robot. Such a creature cannot have purpose, and hence does not need a means of cognition nor the power of volition, and may as well not exist … and in fact CANNOT exist without violating the law of Consciousness – what would such a creature be aware of?

The best I can do is give you an alternative: Universe is Me+NotMe; it’s also You+NotYou (where I use “+” to mean an integrated whole). My representation differs from yours because of perspective, but that which we describe is the same Existence viewed from different perspectives. So it is more: it is the integrated sum of the set of all the Me+NotMe inside-outside dualities that define the boundary of each individual, as well as the relationships among them (that’s the integration).

The thing is, whether or not God exists, the right ways to act are the same: can you imagine that an irrational God could have produced and maintained Existence? Or is it possible that a rational God would maintain an irrational Existence? No. So, God is irrelevant to morality, whether or not it exists. Thus, as per Fuller’s definition, God is not in my Universe (except as a mental placeholder for other people’s word association games), because I have never had an experience that required God as explanation.

The fallacy of God, as traditionally formulated, is that Existence is not eternal and was created (if it was, then it can also be destroyed … but as the minimum perpetual motion machine, with sum-total entropy constant over the whole, even as the material portions decay progressively with non-decreasing entropy, Existence is not at risk).

If Existence is eternal, then a first cause is not required, and God can (at most) be an innocent bystander observing Existence play out.

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pantheism with a dash of deism added at the end, icosahedron.

The following passage comes to mind:

No identification of error will affect the determined exponent of the arbitrary. If he hears his claim being related to counterevidence, he will act promptly to insulate it from logic. For example, he will answer objections as theologians have done through the centuries. "The meaning of 'God' is beyond the power of language to specify," they say. "God in this sense does not involve any contradiction of man's knowledge, as we would see clearly if only we could know Him—which we cannot, not in this life. Prove that this God does not exist."

Or - you are thinking about God wrong. Think about it this way instead, and then prove that this new, revised and improved God does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pantheism with a dash of deism added at the end, icosahedron.

You misunderstand me, or I did not express myself well.

My point is this, in a nutshell: Even if a God consistent with Existence can be imagined as a model, it isn't worth the trouble (i.e., it is a waste of time at best), because such model will not in any way inform the user of it, nor improve their understanding of Existence, operationally and in any other imaginable way. Ergo, such imagined "knowledge", as represented by a "God" who is imagined to be consistent with Existence, bears no relation to reality (in the sense that Existence is unaffected either way), cannot be validated, and is by definition arbitrary and useless at best. One cannot tell truth except by reference to a validation frame, and Existence is the only one I have to work with.

So, God is at best a freely floating abstraction, but I must admit that some folk act based on conclusions derived from the abstraction they call "God" (different for everyone, because WHOLLY subjective/floating), and therefore I must admit the abstraction as worthy of identification. My point, said another way: if I accept that some folk (incorrectly) make up something and call it "God" and use it as a basis for subsequent logics, then what is the nature of this thing called "God", and does its nature contradict reality? That is, how do I PROVE that "God" is merely a figment of the imagination of IN EVERY CASE for those individuals who base logic/conclusions/action on the "concept", even though such a large fraction of individuals claim a valid meaning for the term "God". You can't just ignore the voices of people who can mess up your day. How does one take young folk imbued with religious dogma and reverse their assumptions? That is the only way to move the needle, long run.

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existence was not created by an entity, God or otherwise.

Simple logic:

I assume that Existence is logically prior to every identifiable existent except itself. This is consistent with Ayn's axioms.

In particular, if God/Creator exists, then Existence is either:

a. Logically prior to God, or

b. Equivalent to God.

But I am not God, so Existence is logically prior to God.

Therefore, if God (the supposed creator of Existence) exists, then God did not create Existence. This contradiction establishes that God does not exist, and that all individuals notions of God are fallacious.

Q.E.D.

PS: The question of the inscrutability of Existence as a whole is still very interesting avenue to explore ...

Edited by icosahedron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, God is at best a freely floating abstraction,

Using floating abstraction as a floating abstraction lets the fog settle in and blurr the distinction between a floating abstraction and an invalid concept.

That is, how do I PROVE that "God" is merely a figment of the imagination of IN EVERY CASE for those individuals who base logic/conclusions/action on the "concept", even though such a large fraction of individuals claim a valid meaning for the term "God".

You cannot perform another individuals validation for them.

Simple logic:

Is a deductive approach.

PS: The question of the inscrutability of Existence as a whole is still very interesting avenue to explore ...

An inductive approach is what gives us the power to grasp existence as a whole. Is it necessary or possible to investigate every man that has been, is, and will be in order to explore the nature of man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated nonsimultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.” (Synergetics, Volume 1, by R. Buckminster Fuller, section 301.10)

This is the primacy of consciousness in full force.

.

My point, said another way: if I accept that some folk (incorrectly) make up something and call it "God" and use it as a basis for subsequent logics, then what is the nature of this thing called "God", and does its nature contradict reality? That is, how do I PROVE that "God" is merely a figment of the imagination of IN EVERY CASE for those individuals who base logic/conclusions/action on the "concept", even though such a large fraction of individuals claim a valid meaning for the term "God".

By asking them to define god and then demonstrating the inherent contradiction and invalid concepts used to do so.

This gives me great power because my definition of Universe includes not only the physical but also the metaphysical experiences of Universe, which the physicists thought they had to exclude from their more limited definition of the finite physical portion of Universe. The metaphysical embraces all the weightless experiences of thought, including all the mathematics and the organization of data regarding all the physical experiments, science itself being metaphysical.”

You obviously have no idea what "metaphysical" means to Oist. You are also confusing metaphysics with epistemology.

Existence to me is only that which I have experience directly and/or correlated by communication with others (Fuller calls it Universe, but it is tantamount to Rand’s Existence as I hope you gleaned from the quotes).

More primacy of conscious nonsense. The existence of any mind independent existent is not subject to the minds it is independent of.

But never will anyone disprove my working hypothesis because it will take experimental proof to satisfy me, and the experiment will always be part of the experience of my definition, ergo included.

Like existence one does not prove there is a universe that the concept represents/refers to.

So it is more: it is the integrated sum of the set of all the Me+NotMe inside-outside dualities that define the boundary of each individual, as well as the relationships among them (that’s the integration).

Word salad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish some of you would read Aristotle's reasons for the existence of God-- and maybe even Aquinas' interpretations of Aristotle. I think you would find that your straw men do not measure up. Even if I were a convinced Atheist, I don't think I could dismiss either Aristotle or Aquinas as "silly stupid mystics" right off the bat without some serious contemplation and wrestling.

I understand that the majority of Theists have presented themselves as stupid mystics with all the common evasions associated with Mysticism- and for that I apologize on behalf of Theism. However, I would appreciate it if you could consider the idea that I and others (however few they may be) are seriously approaching the issue as rationally and objectively as possible. I have labored to make it abundantly clear that I denounce mysticism as vehemently as any of you and that if I happen to hold to false ideas, it is by mistake of reason- not by virtue of mysticism.

So please, refrain from straw men and accusations of "faith", "mysticism", "evasion", etc...

Some Clarifications concerning common Objections raised thus far:

[**I am NOT here laying out arguments FOR the existence of God so please do not respond to these by saying "You haven't proved anything". I know that. I am responding to common objections against particular points of my submissions.... These must be resolved before any meaningful conversation concerning proofs can proceed**]

1) Neither Aquinas, Aristotle, or I have espoused that "EVERYTHING has a cause". That is obviously self-contradictory. What HAS been espoused is that "every contingent thing has a cause or something upon which it is contingent" OR that "every thing which is an effect or effected must have a sufficient cause" OR that "everything which began to exist must have a cause". Do you see the difference? These are all sort of different ways of saying the same thing and they are logically infallible- by definition, one would need to violate the LNC to object. So PLEASE- no more objections based on the straw man that "everything is caused". I didn't say that and I've emphasized a FEW times that I don't hold to that. It's getting tiresome. [i would submit that everything but God falls into this category of "contingent/effect/effected" and that everything but God MUST fall into that category- BUT that is for later discussion on proofs. I don't wish to prove that now. I only mention it here in order to clarify my position].

2) I do not hold (and neither did Aquinas or Aristotle) that God created all of existence. This is also obviously irrational since it excludes God from "all of existence". I affirm with all Objectivists that "Existence Exists"- and that Existence (as such) is and must be eternal. However, not all existents are eternal (and I certainly am not). I (and I think Aq. & Ar.) would submit that God is Existence "as such"- "the eternal existent". [some have also referred to God in terms of "subsistence" -emphasizing that He IS in and of Himself- rather than "EX-isting"/ being "OUT OF" something prior].

"Ico" objects to the idea that "God is equivalent to Existence" by saying "I am not God, [and I exist], therefore God is not equivalent to Existence". However, this assumes that "I" is equivalent to Existence and reduces Existence to "Me"! Furthermore, when we are talking about Existence in the axiomatic, necessary, eternal sense, we are not talking about any particular, contingent, non-eternal existents, but Existence as such. To say that God is Existence as such does not seem to be a problem. I do submit that God is Necessary Existence and that all OTHER particular existents are contingent upon Him; that all existents which are not God are finite, non-eternal, mutable and caused. This is also the position of Aquinas & Aristotle.

3) I do not submit (and neither did Aq. or Ar.) that God is solely Consciousness which was conscious only of it's own Consciousness. Again, this is obviously irrational since Consciousness means being conscious of something which EXISTS. Existence is a sort of "pre-requisite" to Consciousness. This is what Objectivism teaches and I heartily agree! However, I do submit that God EXISTS and is conscious of HIS EXISTENCE. This by no means seems irrational. If it is irrational to say that "God is conscious of Himself" than it is irrational to say that "I am conscious of myself". Would Objectivists bar the ability to be conscious of one's own self!? THIS smacks of altruism! (ironically enough)!! Consider that a being which happens to be conscious is NOT "solely Consciousness" since if it IS a "being" than it EXISTS, and therefore you do not have Consciousness APART from Existence but both at the same time (with Existence preceding Consciousness in logical priority but not necessarily consecutively). So please no more objections along that line. That straw man is also dead.

I believe that SHOULD help to clarify my position quite a bit and hopefully enable discussion to move forward. However, if you think I have still been unclear on an issue (whether dealt with above or elsewhere) and you think that issue is of an essential nature to the discussion, please set it forth. If you think that I have not sufficiently answered any of the above objections, please let me know and explain.

In order to avoid huge wastes of time and energy on straw men, etc.. I would rather not move forward until everyone sees that THIS is the position I hold and that it (in terms of what has been stated above) is not illogical/irrational/ or based on mysticism/faith. I understand that I haven't necessarily PROVEN the existence of God yet, but I want to make sure that everyone else understands that these points of my position have also not been proven to be at fault.

Thanks.

-Jacob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the thread has moved well beyond the OP, but I didn't see anyone make this particular criticism.

The first hurdle that any deductive argument for the existence of God has to pass is the validity test. So, let's set this up formally:

(1) Every effect must have a cause.

(2) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

-----------

(3) Therefore, there is an uncaused cause.

Is the argument deductively valid? Well, no. It's not in the form of a syllogism or modus ponens, or some other valid form; it's just some sentences strung together. There could well be hidden assumptions here that we're not seeing, so I think it's reasonable to withhold belief until we get clearer on what this argument actually is.

Why not just use the Kalam Cosmological Argument? It's deductively valid, its premises are better supported than yours (IMO), and it seems to be basically what you were trying to say (also IMO).

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

(2) The universe began to exist.

-----------

(3) So, the universe has a cause.

(2) in the Kalam is supported by the argument from the impossibility of an infinite regress, which is why I suspect that this is what you were getting at, and it has supplementary support from cosmology, which is why I think it's better supported.

There's a lot of literature about that argument. If it's roughly equivalent to your intent, you can just read up on it to disabuse yourself of any belief in its soundness. Or if your argument is closer to a different version of the cosmological argument, like the Leibnizian, then you could read up on that instead.

At any rate, I think you need to express your argument in some deductively valid way.

At the risk of going against what I said in my above post ("that I would like to wait and clear up objections before proceeding with the argument"), I feel I should answer you briefly since you are the one who began this new surge of discussion. :)

I have BRIEFLY reviewed those arguments which you have cited and to me, they seem to be too weak in comparison to what I am saying. Or, to put it differently, what I am saying is sort of taking the strongest points of their arguments and leaving out the weaker ones. Their weaknesses seem to have been in assuming that the Universe is finite and contingent. The 2nd premise in the Kalam syllogism you listed above is easily contestable when left at that.

I would say that the syllogistic summary you made of my argument is accurate (I appreciate your accuracy). I haven't labored to expand a whole lot on those premises because they seem so self-evident, or much more so (at least) than in the Kalam syllogism. But allow me to attempt some clarification on that:

1) Every effect has a cause- This is almost axiomatic since an "effect" is "that which is caused".

2) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes- This has been a point of some contention (obviously) but I think it still holds. However, to further clarify this point, let me submit the following:

A. An actual infinite cannot exist.

B. An infinite temporal regress of physical events is an actual infinite.

C. Therefore an infinite temporal regress of physical events cannot exist.

3) If there is any effect, than by virtue of "1", there is a cause which is either effected itself, or not. If it is effected itself, than it has a cause which is also either effected or not...

4) This cannot go on infinitely by virtue of "2" and therefore, if there is any effect, there must be a cause which itself was not caused.

5) There is an effect, and therefore there must be an uncaused cause.

Does that make sense (at least in terms of the deductive validity that you were asking for)??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of going against what I said in my above post ("that I would like to wait and clear up objections before proceeding with the argument"), I feel I should answer you briefly since you are the one who began this new surge of discussion. :)

Thanks.

I have BRIEFLY reviewed those arguments which you have cited and to me, they seem to be too weak in comparison to what I am saying. Or, to put it differently, what I am saying is sort of taking the strongest points of their arguments and leaving out the weaker ones. Their weaknesses seem to have been in assuming that the Universe is finite and contingent. The 2nd premise in the Kalam syllogism you listed above is easily contestable when left at that.

I would say that the syllogistic summary you made of my argument is accurate (I appreciate your accuracy). I haven't labored to expand a whole lot on those premises because they seem so self-evident, or much more so (at least) than in the Kalam syllogism. But allow me to attempt some clarification on that:

1) Every effect has a cause- This is almost axiomatic since an "effect" is "that which is caused".

2) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes- This has been a point of some contention (obviously) but I think it still holds. However, to further clarify this point, let me submit the following:

A. An actual infinite cannot exist.

B. An infinite temporal regress of physical events is an actual infinite.

C. Therefore an infinite temporal regress of physical events cannot exist.

3) If there is any effect, than by virtue of "1", there is a cause which is either effected itself, or not. If it is effected itself, than it has a cause which is also either effected or not...

4) This cannot go on infinitely by virtue of "2" and therefore, if there is any effect, there must be a cause which itself was not caused.

5) There is an effect, and therefore there must be an uncaused cause.

Does that make sense (at least in terms of the deductive validity that you were asking for)??

That looks valid. I can see why you feel trapped by this argument - it's more subtle than the argument that the typical theist will give.

If I can also offer a criticism, I would wonder why the series of causes would stop going backward at some particular point. It doesn't seem like enough to just draw a distinction between effects and first causes like you do; you need to provide some reason why the series stops. In the absence of such an explanation, I would be tempted to just deny that there can't be an actual infinite. (I would be tempted to deny A.)

You rely on the principle of determination in your first post, but I don't see any reason to accept the principle of determination - perhaps there's some non-personal process that creates universes from outside time. It's hard to explain why such a process would create a universe at one time rather than another, but no more so than to explain why a free being acts at one time rather than another.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

[**I am NOT here laying out arguments FOR the existence of God so please do not respond to these by saying "You haven't proved anything".

<snip

[i would submit that everything but God falls into this category of "contingent/effect/effected" and that everything but God MUST fall into that category- BUT that is for later discussion on proofs.

<snip>

I (and I think Aq. & Ar.) would submit that God is Existence "as such"- "the eternal existent".

<snip>

To say that God is Existence as such does not seem to be a problem. I do submit that God is Necessary Existence and that all OTHER particular existents are contingent upon Him; that all existents which are not God are finite, non-eternal, mutable and caused.

<snip>

However, I do submit that God EXISTS and is conscious of HIS EXISTENCE.

<snip>

You are correct. You submitted no proofs, no evidence, no defintion, in short, an arbitrary assertion. Dismissed.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. You submitted no proofs, no evidence, no defintion, in short, an arbitrary assertion. Dismissed.

*Rolls eyes*- perhaps that's because I've been too busy helping you see what I'm ACTUALLY saying and getting your attention off of the dozens of straw men which have been concocted. Perhaps you haven't taken the time to consider the proof I've laid forth because I don't speak to you like you're a stupid little monkey (which seems to be the common practice around here). Perhaps you also haven't been able to see the argument because you've been too busy shoving straw men in your eyes. (I mean "you" in general to mean the majority of people in this thread).

See my above response to ctrl_y for a brief summary of PART of my argument (the central part). If you disagree with a particular point in that argument, please specify as HE has been so kind as to do. EXAMPLE: He would question "A"- that there cannot be an actual infinite. This way, I can RESPOND to your ACTUAL point of disagreement RATHER than a to a plethora of straw men. If you accept my argument but do not accept my conclusion that this uncaused cause is God, fine. That can be argued further- but ONLY IF and WHEN this part of the argument is established. Otherwise we're spinning our wheels and wasting a whole lot of time which I am not at all interested in doing.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Every effect has a cause- This is almost axiomatic since an "effect" is "that which is caused".

2) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes- This has been a point of some contention (obviously) but I think it still holds.

You are reifying concepts. "Cause" and "effect" are abstract concepts existing in the minds of rational beings. These concepts are used to more easily comprehend the interaction of physical entities. Such concepts do not physically exist the same way that entities exist. Entities exist and interact according to their natures - this is causality. Every interaction has a "cause": the specific entities involved in the interaction - and an "effect": the resulting modification to the entities, depending on their natures. All of causality involves the interaction of such entities. To speak of *events* or *causes* apart from entities, or time *before* entities (i.e. before existence), is to drop the context on which those concepts are built - the fallacy of the stolen concept.

A. An actual infinite cannot exist.

B. An infinite temporal regress of physical events is an actual infinite.

What does it mean to *exist*, and in what sense can you claim that past interactions of entities "exist"? Does that day when I cooked that great steak "exist" now, other than in my head as a memory? To say that the past "exists" in the sense that you mean in A, is again dropping the context of the concepts in the statement.

Because there is no physical evidence for the existence of God (nor could there be), the only way to persuade is by effectively playing word games, and counting on the irrationality of the audience.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

That looks valid. I can see why you feel trapped by this argument - it's more subtle than the argument that the typical theist will give.

If I can also offer a criticism, I would wonder why the series of causes would stop going backward at some particular point. It doesn't seem like enough to just draw a distinction between effects and first causes like you do; you need to provide some reason why the series stops. In the absence of such an explanation, I would be tempted to just deny that there can't be an actual infinite. (I would be tempted to deny A.)

You rely on the principle of determination in your first post, but I don't see any reason to accept the principle of determination - perhaps there's some non-personal process that creates universes from outside time. It's hard to explain why such a process would create a universe at one time rather than another, but no more so than to explain why a free being acts at one time rather than another.

The series would need to have a starting point by virtue of "A"- but that IS assuming that A is true. This seems to be the point at which most people on here disagree, however it seems that some DO agree that there cannot be an actual infinite- but these want to jump to other points in my argument which sometimes involve straw men. So, I'm trying to take stock and have an orderly discussion. Haha!

I will be happy to discuss why I hold that there cannot be an actual infinite- but first, I'd like to establish where everyone else stands on that issue and establish that this is the point of crucial disagreement. Otherwise everyone is launching attacks (legitimate or otherwise) in every angle and direction in such a way that it is impossible for me to respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume that the major point of discussion now is that "A"- "An actual infinite cannot exist".

There are three options here:

Option 1: You agree that an actual infinite is impossible, but you don't agree that this necessitates an "uncaused cause" or "prime mover" or "necessary being". In this case, please point out what OTHER point of my argument you disagree with. ALSO, please aid me in convincing those in "option 3" of this position.

Option 2: You agree that an actual infinite is impossible and you agree that this necessitates an uncaused cause/prime mover/necessary being- but this is not necessarily "God". In this case, I will suspend discussion (for now) on proving that it is "God", until a decent amount of people arrive at this option (assuming any will)! ALSO, please aid me in convincing those in options 1 & 3 of this position.

Option 3: You disagree that an actual infinite is impossible.

****Please, Everyone who responds: Clarify where you stand! For the sake of taking this conversation seriously. If you stand at option 3, it's pretty obvious, but if you stand at either 1 or 2, please make it known, as this is not as obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using floating abstraction as a floating abstraction lets the fog settle in and blurr the distinction between a floating abstraction and an invalid concept.

You cannot perform another individuals validation for them.

Is a deductive approach.

An inductive approach is what gives us the power to grasp existence as a whole. Is it necessary or possible to investigate every man that has been, is, and will be in order to explore the nature of man?

I see "floating abstraction" as the larger concept; "invalid concepts" are floating abstractions of a particular kind: they contradict reality at every turn, accept unreality as a basis, and a mind using them runs roughshod over the virtue of honesty; whereas the notion of floating abstraction is more generic and can include cases where only some of reality is evaded or contradicted.

Agree, a deductive approach establishes the fallacy of God, assuming Existence. And an inductive approach is necessary to imagine limit processes, such as Existence.

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the primacy of consciousness in full force.

Really? So, you base your deductions on more than experience? Less? The set referred to in the definition is just the right size: the integrated sum of knowledge of Existence. Knowledge is a sum across time and individuals, because it can be shared, even if the specific knowledge of any given individual is only part of the whole -- when you buy bread, you rely, implicitly, on the knowledge of the baker to get leverage via division of labor. And "experiential knowledge" is redundant.

I think your working definition of the word "experience" is insufficient. Thoughts are experiences, too -- and so is every act of production, and every use of a product, and every trade, and every act of creation or destruction. Experience is the individual's grasp of the events that transpire as Existence evolves, is a natural restriction of Existence to the individual consciousness.

You obviously have no idea what "metaphysical" means to Oist. You are also confusing metaphysics with epistemology.

I don't think so. Experience is the means by which we become aware of, and act within, Existence. It is the personal perspective of Existence, as grasped by an individual, via individual means. As such, the fact that experience of events is the basis of my grasp of reality is clearly a corollary of the metaphysical axioms of Objectivism. Experience is pre-supposed by any cognitive or actual event, because awareness requires experience of otherness, and without awareness, consciousness is naught. This is clearly metaphysical and cannot be proven, only validated as self-evident. It's metaphysical.

As for science as a discipline being metaphysical at root, of course it is; any specific science is an application of metaphysics to gain knowledge, i.e., the methods of gaining knowledge are epistemological; but the knowledge and its basis in facts of experience is a given (once created by an individual), a fact of reality, and can only be deduced if experience is a metaphysical primary, howsoever one wishes to organize and relate one's experiences to gain leverage (which is the purpose of epistemology).

More primacy of conscious nonsense. The existence of any mind independent existent is not subject to the minds it is independent of.

Like existence one does not prove there is a universe that the concept represents/refers to.

Word salad!

A working definition of "Existence" is essential to proceed much past the self-evident; and that definition must be objective, i.e., based on objects that we can sense and/or conceive. A conceptual object, if properly based on Existence, is an integrated product of existents as grasped by a rational mind (including relationships, which are another mode of existent). The best word for this integration is "experience", which is precisely the conjoining of an individual consciousness with sensory data, to form objects -- objects of one's experience.

It is true that what I know today is not complete (or else time would have stopped); but given today's context, all I have to work with is my current experience, and in some cases I can identify reliable others and incorporate their stated experiences in my calculations; of course, I only do this when I deem the other ideas plausible, and trust the other person to have done their conceptual job well. I must do this; I can't do everything, labor must be divided and knowledge shared to create productive leverage.

And my experience is growing and I see new relationships all the time.

So why is it not sufficient to state the definition in terms of the objects of experience, i.e., that which I CAN grasp by cognitive means -- why do you feel the need to (implicitly) uphold hidden variables, rather than rely on your senses and ability to correlate them?

The definition is precisely the right size.

Perhaps, you have a better one? It is easy to criticize, and maybe you think it sufficient to identify Existence without defining it; but, operationally, you will act in accord with your definition -- so please make it explicit for your own sake (principle of least surprise, no one needs to be puppeted by implicit assumptions).

- ico

Edited by icosahedron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Rolls eyes*- perhaps that's because I've been too busy helping you see what I'm ACTUALLY saying and getting your attention off of the dozens of straw men which have been concocted. Perhaps you haven't taken the time to consider the proof I've laid forth because I don't speak to you like you're a stupid little monkey (which seems to be the common practice around here). Perhaps you also haven't been able to see the argument because you've been too busy shoving straw men in your eyes. (I mean "you" in general to mean the majority of people in this thread).

You stated you were not going to lay out an argument. You did not lay out an argument.

You asked us not to cite you for not proving anything. Since you submitted no argument, how can we cite you for not proving anything?

You arbitrarily asserted several times, the existence of God.

And in response, you seem to imply I deployed a straw-man tactic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are reifying concepts. "Cause" and "effect" are abstract concepts existing in the minds of rational beings. These concepts are used to more easily comprehend the interaction of physical entities. Such concepts do not physically exist the same way that entities exist. Entities exist and interact according to their natures - this is causality. Every interaction has a "cause": the specific entities involved in the interaction - and an "effect": the resulting modification to the entities, depending on their natures. All of causality involves the interaction of such entities. To speak of *events* or *causes* apart from entities, or time *before* entities (i.e. before existence), is to drop the context on which those concepts are built - the fallacy of the stolen concept.

What does it mean to *exist*, and in what sense can you claim that past interactions of entities "exist"? Does that day when I cooked that great steak "exist" now, other than in my head as a memory? To say that the past "exists" in the sense that you mean in A, is again dropping the context of the concepts in the statement.

Because there is no physical evidence for the existence of God (nor could there be), the only way to persuade is by effectively playing word games, and counting on the irrationality of the audience.

I do not think that I am guilty of "reification" here. I would be if I said that "an event went on a walk" or "put on a hat" (treating it as something it is not- a physical concrete object). Reification is fallacious because it treats something as if it were something other than what it actually is (violates the law of Identity). I am not asserting that events or causes are physical entities. But, I am asserting that they are real. It seems that you are assuming that "Existence" is restricted to physical concrete entities which can be studied under a microscope. I don't think that this is what Objectivism holds to, but I could be wrong. This sort of strict "physicalism" or "materialism" or "concretism" (whatever you want to call it) would seem to have MANY logical problems.

I have not spoken of "events" or "causes" apart from entities or before existence as such. I have spoken of them in terms of particular existents ("Things happened before I existed"). But this isn't irrational in the least.

I can claim that past interactions of entities exist because that state of affairs is REAL. All truth is eternal (I believe Rand also held to this view). The truth that" I slept in my bed last night" will always be true as long as "last night" refers to the night of Nov. 4th 2010 and as long as "I" refers to me. States of affairs are real, they are eternally true, and therefore exist- whether any particular mind knows it or not. Say no one else knows that I slept in my bed last night and I die- leaving no one to REMEMBER that this happened. This does not in any way negate the fact that it did happen. The interaction of entities (even in the past) are not contingent upon my or anyone else's consciousness. They exist- perhaps not in the same sense that my finger exists. But physical concrete entities are not the only form of existence.

There is no physical evidence for the Laws of Logic or for Human Rights- And yet we would contend that they are more real and obvious than any physical phenomenon, and that those who refuse to accept them are the ones playing irrational word games and evading reality. I would say the same thing about the existence of God (as I think Aristotle would)- and I would add that just as the consequences of ignoring such obvious truth as Logic is horrendous, so too it is with this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated you were not going to lay out an argument. You did not lay out an argument.

You asked us not to cite you for not proving anything. Since you submitted no argument, how can we cite you for not proving anything?

You arbitrarily asserted several times, the existence of God.

And in response, you seem to imply I deployed a straw-man tactic?

The argument has been presented elsewhere in this thread. I stated in that particular post that I was responding to objections based on straw men. There is a difference between laying forth an argument and responding to objections concerning one's position.

It was clear that the majority of people in this thread could not see or understand the argument because they were blinded by what they thought to be legitimate objections to my belief in God- but which were really straw men. These needed to be clarified in order to move on (or back) to the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be if I said that "an event went on a walk" or "put on a hat" (treating it as something it is not- a physical concrete object).

In the case of your full argument, the reification is, "the cause created physical entities". The concepts of cause/effect/event all involve the interaction of pre-existing entities, so by trying to assert a cause/event occurring apart from entities, you are dropping the context in which those concepts are valid.

It seems that you are assuming that "Existence" is restricted to physical concrete entities which can be studied under a microscope.

What gave you that idea? There are certainly existents which exist only in the mind, for example concepts, however these are dependent on the pre-existence of something physical (the brain). That is why notions such as a consciousness apart from the body, or time apart from the motion of physical objects, or events apart from the interaction of existents, are irrational.

States of affairs are real, they are eternally true, and therefore exist- whether any particular mind knows it or not.

What is this concept called a "state of affair"? Can you identify the referents of such a concept? Until then, I cannot really respond to what you are referring to.

A memory of a past interaction of physical entities exists in the mind as an abstract "recording". The past interaction no longer exists - the entities involved have since interacted with and been modified by other entities. So there is no basis for your constraint on the number of past interactions of physical entities.

There is no physical evidence for the Laws of Logic

Evidence presupposes the laws of logic. Evidence would not be possible without logic.

Nothing presupposes the existence of god. In fact to the contrary, knowledge/logic/reason all presuppose that existence exists, and that those things which exist have specific identities. God - i.e. a consciousness conscious only of itself, existing in non-existence, acting apart from time - goes against all of knowledge and logic. The existence of God would mean that contradictions are possible, and therefore knowledge/logic is impossible.

Edited by brian0918
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...