Argument for the existence of God

[bobgo]

Your argument assumes that action-as-such inside the universe must have an origin point, even as we both agree that existence per se does not require one. Your claim is that if there is action, then there is an entity which by nature can act of its own accord. Is it fair to rephrase this to say that if there is action, then then there is an entity capable of originating its own action without outside stimuli?

If so, then your argument assumes that the origin of action must be explained. But why is this so? Action is simply entities behaving according to their own natures. In physics terms, we might equate action with entities possessing kinetic energy. But KE is simply one form of energy, and energy is tranformed into KE and from KE into other forms all the time. Why must there have been a point in time where there was no kinetic energy in existence? This seems to be what you're claiming when you argue that if there is action, there must be an entitiy capable of originating it.

My position is simply that existence, energy, and action have always existed and require no origin point. As such, there does not need to be an entity capable of providing this origin point.

Action is also my arm movement.

If “Action is simply entities behaving according to their own natures”, and I agree with that as an objective point of view, we are not free. Because any action we are doing has been determined by kinetic energy.

We believe to be free, but we are not.

When physical entities become to us absolutely true... it comes out we are nothing.

That is, any value we may have, as love for example, it comes out to be just an illusion.

[dream_weaver]

Action is also my arm movement.

If “Action is simply entities behaving according to their own natures”, and I agree with that as an objective point of view, we are not free. Because any action we are doing has been determined by kinetic energy.

We believe to be free, but we are not.

When physical entities become to us absolutely true... it comes out we are nothing.

That is, any value we may have, as love for example, it comes out to be just an illusion.

This essentially outlines the determinist viewpoint, which both Objectivism (as I understand it) and I reject out of hand.

Dante is addressing 'stasis vs. flux' as the natural/necessary state of existence, if I understand his post correctly.

[bobgo]

This essentially outlines the determinist viewpoint, which both Objectivism (as I understand it) and I reject out of hand.

Dante is addressing 'stasis vs. flux' as the natural/necessary state of existence, if I understand his post correctly.

If the determinist viewpoint is rejected, where is our will coming from?

[dream_weaver]

If the determinist viewpoint is rejected, where is our will coming from?

If the determnist viewpoint is accepted, how could knowledge of anything, including free-will, be evaluated as true/false, correct/incorrect, right/wrong? After all, whatever has been 'determined' is 'destined' to be.

[Jacob86]

Here's a couple of relatively simple ones.

I cannot directly perceive hydrogen or oxygen. I am cognizant that hydrogen and oxygen exist.

By subjecting water to an electric current with the necessary equipment, oxygen and hydrogen can be accumulated and correlate with the properties that have been validated to identify that it is hydrogen and oxygen that has been collected. Mixing the two gasses together, and introducing a spark to the mixture, the two gasses chemically combine to form water once again.

I cannot directly perceive another galaxies. I am cognizant that other galaxies exist.

By aligning lenses which have been demonstrated to magnify objects directly available to my senses, telescopes have been constructed that allow us to magnify our view in such a way to observe Jupiter, Saturn and other celestial objects. By constructing a larger telescope and positioning it out in space we have been able to capture images of other galaxies.

If something exists, it can be demonstrated, incontrovertibly.

It would be very helpful if you could do this with a non-material idea (justice, free will, etc..), because from the two examples listed above, it seems that you are saying that only ideas which can be shoved into a test-tube or analyzed through a microscope/telescope can be considered valid..

[Greebo]

Justice was already validated for you, Jacob.

[Jacob86]

Herein, I think, lies your problem; yes, there is action, but you "necessitate" a cause. Ayn Rand explicitly points out that every "form, motion, combination [...] are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved". They form their own cause, [every form of] action is contained within existence.

The quote validates existence in itself, your "necessity" therefore comes off as arbitrary, not because you don't "have enough percepts", but because following Ms. Rand's validation, your position is unwarranted. Else said, you are introducing an element out of place, out of reason, out of validation...

This quote of Ms. Rand's doesn't do anything other than restate my first premise which is also a quote from Galt which is also the law of identity in respect to action: "An entity only acts in accordance to its nature".

I agree with Rand that every form, motion, combination...are determined by the identities of the elements involved. I am simply pointing out that this means that unless there is an entity with an identity such that it is able to act of its own accord, then there would be no action since all entities which lack the ability to act of their own accord rely upon prior action in order to act (react) at all.

I am simply taking what Rand has said to its logical conclusion and you are demanding that I "blank out" this conclusion based on the fact that it is not pragmatically necessary to think about such things. When you say that it is arbitrary to think out the logical conclusions of a fact, you are implicitly condemning all knowledge as arbitrary (since all knowledge is a result of thinking through logical conclusions) and reducing "truth" down to that which is immediately practical for your use. When you say "arbitrary" here, what you mean is "not immediately practical".

[Jacob86]

Justice was already validated for you, Jacob.

And I would LOVE.....L O V E....LOVE to know how my reasoning for the validation of the concept of "God" is different from the reasoning for the validation of the concept of "Justice".

Point out the differences. Show me where my argument goes wrong in comparison to the argument for justice concerning the "reducibility to perception" standard.

I don't see the difference. Everyone is insisting that there is a huge difference. I am begging for someone to point it out.

[Jacob86]

Your argument assumes that action-as-such inside the universe must have an origin point, even as we both agree that existence per se does not require one. Your claim is that if there is action, then there is an entity which by nature can act of its own accord. Is it fair to rephrase this to say that if there is action, then then there is an entity capable of originating its own action without outside stimuli?

Yes, this seems like a fair rephrasing of my point.

If so, then your argument assumes that the origin of action must be explained. But why is this so?

Yes...depending on what you mean by "explained" here. My argument for the most part assumes that the origin of action must exist, but it does not assume that every possible detail about it can or must be known.

Action is simply entities behaving according to their own natures.

Exactly. And my point is that unless there is an entity which by nature can act on its own rather than REact, then there would be no action.

In physics terms, we might equate action with entities possessing kinetic energy. But KE is simply one form of energy, and energy is tranformed into KE and from KE into other forms all the time. Why must there have been a point in time where there was no kinetic energy in existence? This seems to be what you're claiming when you argue that if there is action, there must be an entitiy capable of originating it.

My position is simply that existence, energy, and action have always existed and require no origin point. As such, there does not need to be an entity capable of providing this origin point.

Keep in mind that I do not claim anything concerning energy (whether Kinetic or otherwise) in my argument. The reason is that all of this is in the realm of special Sciences..and whatever is studied under special Sciences will in no way conflict with philosophic truth.

The details concerning the many various types of reactions, types of energies, types of causes and effects, etc... in the universe are ultimately irrelevant in this argument. Regardless of the type of energy being looked at, any given entity either acts (uses this energy) as a reaction to the action of other entities OR acts of its own accord (volitionally).

Because of the Law of Identity, we know that every non-volitional entity acts as a reaction to prior action (EVEN if we do not know the prior action which caused it or if it is a mystery to us in our current level of Scientific discovery).

If "entities only act according to their nature",

and if all entities in the past were reactionary by nature (meaning that their nature was such that they only act as a reaction),

then there would be no action because there would be no entity with a sufficient nature to act.

It is fairly simple. It only gets complex when you try and evade it in many complex ways (bringing up various special science redundancies which do not escape the problem, bringing up ridiculous notions of an infinite regress which is nothing more than a non-existent series, etc..).

If your position is that "action has always existed and requires no origin point" (and implicitly that none of this eternal action was volitional) then your position must assume either that one or more entities acted against their natures AND that there is a series without beginning which is to say that there is a non-existent series. That's two strikes against your position from the law of identity. Unless you can show how your position does not violate the law of identity in these ways, your position is illogical which is infinitely worse than the "arbitrary" accusation which has been attributed to my position.

[Jacob86]

If the determinist viewpoint is rejected, where is our will coming from?

Bobgo, see my post #182. It specifically deals with this issue. Because freedom from physical cause and effect is needed for the function of our minds and our wills to be valid, and because the functioning of our minds and our wills must be valid in order to know anything, therefore our minds and our wills must be "above and beyond" physical cause and effect.

Essentially, in order for Man to know that ANYTHING is true, His mind (and I would argue what Rand refers to as His "Soul") must be "supernatural" meaning "above and beyond" physical nature.

[Xall]

Because of the Law of Identity, we know that every non-volitional entity acts as a reaction to prior action (EVEN if we do not know the prior action which caused it or if it is a mystery to us in our current level of Scientific discovery).

If "entities only act according to their nature",

and if all entities in the past were reactionary by nature (meaning that their nature was such that they only act as a reaction),

then there would be no action because there would be no entity with a sufficient nature to act.

It is fairly simple. It only gets complex when you try and evade it in many complex ways (bringing up various special science redundancies which do not escape the problem, bringing up ridiculous notions of an infinite regress which is nothing more than a non-existent series, etc..).

If your position is that "action has always existed and requires no origin point" (and implicitly that none of this eternal action was volitional) then your position must assume either that one or more entities acted against their natures AND that there is a series without beginning which is to say that there is a non-existent series. That's two strikes against your position from the law of identity. Unless you can show how your position does not violate the law of identity in these ways, your position is illogical which is infinitely worse than the "arbitrary" accusation which has been attributed to my position.

I agree with Rand that every form, motion, combination...are determined by the identities of the elements involved. I am simply pointing out that this means that unless there is an entity with an identity such that it is able to act of its own accord, then there would be no action since all entities which lack the ability to act of their own accord rely upon prior action in order to act (react) at all.

Jacob, at this point I would like to motion to you (is that a correct expression?) two points:

Firstly, the reason I brought the quote up is not without reason; I believe it expresses clearly that volitional action (your words, action) can be the result of prior non-volitional actions (your words, reaction) and that the "reactionary" status of non-volitional entities is contained within their nature and does not require prior "action".

Secondly, in your Prime Mover position (sorry for the labeling if inaccurate, however I think it's a fair description of it) - and this has been pointed out before, I don't recall you addressing it - what would exactly cause the *first* action (I'm not referring to this in a deterministic manner)? If nothing, would you imply it escapes causality altogether? And if so, why would it be exempt from it? As I've noticed pointed out in other places on this forum, if you deconstruct 'god' in such a manner that his attribute of existence becomes synonymous to that of the Universe (i.e. existence itself), it therefore (as a concept) becomes invalid, as you can ascribe everything to existence as such; and your point about *first* action would be contained within this, as per the quote, since the existence of existence would be sufficient for such a development (enabling "action" and "reaction", without reason for a "Prime Mover"), thus contradicting that otherwise

there would be no action because there would be no entity with a sufficient nature to act.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Xall

[dream_weaver]

It would be very helpful if you could do this with a non-material idea (justice, free will, etc..), because from the two examples listed above, it seems that you are saying that only ideas which can be shoved into a test-tube or analyzed through a microscope/telescope can be considered valid..

That was in response to your declaration that 'god' exists. The examples given were means of validating actual existent objects.

The contrast with 'justice' (which Greebo pointed out had already been linked to) was to illustrate the method for validating abstractions from abstractions, to validate aspects of reality that are not entities, but attributes, relationships, methods etc, which ultimately relate to entities (the perceptual level).

Leonard Peikoff validates existence, consciousness, identity, causality, primacy of existence, metaphysical absolute, and sense perception, laying the ground work for the validation of volition. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is a step by step validation of the foundations and principles including an introduction to validation of concepts using the concept of "friend".

If you are as interested as you indicate verbally, that would be a book to acquire and ask yourself at the end of each sentence, paragraph and chapter - Is this valid? Is this true? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Jacob86]

Jacob, at this point I would like to motion to you (is that a correct expression?) two points:

Firstly, the reason I brought the quote up is not without reason; I believe it expresses clearly that volitional action (your words, action) can be the result of prior non-volitional actions (your words, reaction) and that the "reactionary" status of non-volitional entities is contained within their nature and does not require prior "action".

I MAY misunderstand you here so correct me if my response seems irrelevant to what you are trying to say here.

"Volitional action can be the result of prior non-volitional actions".

This is true in a sense. My volitional action is partially a result of the non-volitional action of biology in my body keeping me alive. If such action in my body were not happening, I would not be alive to have any volition. In that respect my volitional action is partially a result of non-volitional actions. However, the non-volitional actions of biology are not and cannot be a sufficient cause to my volitional action unless you wish to renounce volition and embrace determinism. Volitional action can be partially a result or influenced by non-volitional action, but ultimately volitional action by definition must be free from the influence of non-volitional action.

"The 'reactionary' status of non-volitional entities is contained within their nature and does not require prior 'action'".

This is also true. The reactionary nature of a non-volitional entity is not dependent upon prior action or anything else. The nature of any entity is its nature and its nature is not dependent upon anything other than itself. However, if by nature an entity is "reactionary" (meaning that it can only act as a reaction to other stimuli) then its action is dependent on prior action.

So the nature of a reactionary entity is not dependent on prior action. But, the action of a reactionary entity IS dependent on prior action (that's what is meant by saying that its nature/status is reactionary).

Secondly, in your Prime Mover position (sorry for the labeling if inaccurate, however I think it's a fair description of it)

Its a fair label. While I haven't studied Aristotle's argument in depth, from what I have read, my argument is similar but seemingly much more concise...

- and this has been pointed out before, I don't recall you addressing it - what would exactly cause the *first* action (I'm not referring to this in a deterministic manner)? If nothing, would you imply it escapes causality altogether? And if so, why would it be exempt from it?

If we are talking about God's volitional action as the "first action", then it is not difficult to use our own volitional action as analogous to understand it. Volitional action is not without a cause, but it is a very different type of cause then that of reactionary action. Volitional action is and must be non-deterministic in this way (as you seem to hint at). The cause of volitional action is value. The cause of value is consciousness of something which is valuable. So, concerning the first action, the cause would be God's value. Value of what? Himself. God's first action of creation would be the "overflow" of His supreme and invincible delight in all of His perfection. His action of creation as an expression and celebration of His greatness would be the archetype for which all proper human creation is analogous. He would be the ultimate "Egoist" and all of creation would be His expression of His own pleasure in Himself.

And no, this does not imply "escape from causality altogether". Remember that the law of cause and effect states that "every EFFECT must have a cause"...NOT that "every THING must have a cause". Everything which is an effect, by definition has a cause (even if we don't know what it is). If something is not an effect (if it does not have a cause), then that something is eternal. If you think through this, you will realize that there MUST be something which is eternal (without cause)... Atheists assert that it is the universe. I assert that it is God.

Why should anyone accept God over the Universe as the eternal thing??

Because that which is eternal and uncaused must have a nature which enables it to act (not REact) of its own accord... meaning that the eternal thing which is uncaused must be volitional.

As I've noticed pointed out in other places on this forum, if you deconstruct 'god' in such a manner that his attribute of existence becomes synonymous to that of the Universe (i.e. existence itself), it therefore (as a concept) becomes invalid, as you can ascribe everything to existence as such; and your point about *first* action would be contained within this, as per the quote, since the existence of existence would be sufficient for such a development (enabling "action" and "reaction", without reason for a "Prime Mover"), thus contradicting that otherwise

Your usage of "Universe" here equates "all existents" with "all physical existents". The axiom that "Existence exists" means that there must be some existent which is eternal (has always existed). There are a number of reasons that the physical universe cannot be the eternal existent which is "existence as such", but one of the primary reasons is the above concerning action. That which exists in and of itself and owe's its existence to nothing outside of or apart from it cannot owe its action to anything outside of or apart from it...meaning that its action must be volitional--owing to nothing but its own contemplation and value of itself.

[Jacob86]

That was in response to your declaration that 'god' exists. The examples given were means of validating actual existent objects.

The contrast with 'justice' (which Greebo pointed out had already been linked to) was to illustrate the method for validating abstractions from abstractions, to validate aspects of reality that are not entities, but attributes, relationships, methods etc, which ultimately relate to entities (the perceptual level).

So, is it accurate to say that your position is essentially this:

"God doesn't exist because I can't see Him and only that which can be seen exists"?

[dream_weaver]

So, is it accurate to say that your position is essentially this:

"God doesn't exist because I can't see Him and only that which can be seen exists"?

Can you see hydrogen? Can you see oxygen?

It would be more accurate to say that you are not able to comprehend what you are reading and integrate it with the rest of your observations of the world about you.

The only place that contradictions can exist is in the epistemological department (the mind). You might consider hiring an epistemological housekeeper for a thorough epistemological housecleaning.

[Trebor]

It would be more accurate to say that you are not able to comprehend what you are reading and integrate it with the rest of your observations of the world about you.

The only place that contradictions can exist is in the epistemological department (the mind). You might consider hiring an epistemological housekeeper for a thorough epistemological housecleaning.

Amen!!!

[Jacob86]

Can you see hydrogen? Can you see oxygen?

It would be more accurate to say that you are not able to comprehend what you are reading and integrate it with the rest of your observations of the world about you.

The only place that contradictions can exist is in the epistemological department (the mind). You might consider hiring an epistemological housekeeper for a thorough epistemological housecleaning.

What is that even supposed to mean? Did I suggest that I believe that contradictions can exist???? Seriously. Your epistemological mumbo jumbo is really getting annoying.

As far as I can tell from the presentations on this thread, the Objectivist Epistemological Standards (especially the ones concerning the reducibility to perception) are a LOT like the Anti-Trust Laws: So vague and difficult to define that they could be interpreted (by whim) to rule out any argument which is disliked and likewise could be interpreted to rule in the favor of (again...by whim) any argument which suits the Objectivists fancy.

As evidence, I submit the fact that no one here seems to have been able to agree on and specifically articulate a specific interpretation of these standards. At first it was insisted that the Epistemological Standards of Objectivism were that ALL knowledge had to be ENTIRELY reducible to perception and nothing else. Then, it was conceded (by some) that knowledge is reducible to perception and logic..but that logic is reducible entirely to perception?! Now, it seems the standard is that the thing in question must be able to be shoved into a test tube.

Let me spell it out for you. If you do not accept an argument of logical necessity (where the alternative option- Atheism in this case- is proved to be illogical), then you cannot CONSISTENTLY accept ANY logical argument which means you need to ditch your precious axioms and almost everything Rand ever said....IF you want to be consistent. However, I have noticed that especially in the realm of epistemology, many Oists on this forum seem to have little concern (if any at all) for consistency.

[dream_weaver]

Let me spell it out for you. If you do not accept an argument of logical necessity (where the alternative option- Atheism in this case- is proved to be illogical), then you cannot CONSISTENTLY accept ANY logical argument which means you need to ditch your precious axioms and almost everything Rand ever said....IF you want to be consistent. However, I have noticed that especially in the realm of epistemology, many Oists on this forum seem to have little concern (if any at all) for consistency.

Your usage of proof is ambiguous at best as it lacks integration with the ablity to perform the intermediate process of validation. This would be the primary need for the recommended procedure(s) listed earlier it this thread.

If you want to fantasize about gods, ghosts, angels, demons and whatnot, that is entirely up to you. There are plenty of websites and forums devoted to such nonsense, please feel free to frequent them.

Edited December 13, 2010 by dream_weaver

[Xall]

I MAY misunderstand you here so correct me if my response seems irrelevant to what you are trying to say here.

"Volitional action can be the result of prior non-volitional actions".

This is true in a sense. My volitional action is partially a result of the non-volitional action of biology in my body keeping me alive. If such action in my body were not happening, I would not be alive to have any volition. In that respect my volitional action is partially a result of non-volitional actions. However, the non-volitional actions of biology are not and cannot be a sufficient cause to my volitional action unless you wish to renounce volition and embrace determinism. Volitional action can be partially a result or influenced by non-volitional action, but ultimately volitional action by definition must be free from the influence of non-volitional action.

"The 'reactionary' status of non-volitional entities is contained within their nature and does not require prior 'action'".

This is also true. The reactionary nature of a non-volitional entity is not dependent upon prior action or anything else. The nature of any entity is its nature and its nature is not dependent upon anything other than itself. However, if by nature an entity is "reactionary" (meaning that it can only act as a reaction to other stimuli) then its action is dependent on prior action.

So the nature of a reactionary entity is not dependent on prior action. But, the action of a reactionary entity IS dependent on prior action (that's what is meant by saying that its nature/status is reactionary).

Here is where I believe you are creating an unwarranted dichotomy. If you take 'existence exists', it is of sufficient nature to cause both reactions and actions to take place and I do not see how the postulation of the necessity of a volitional entity would supersede that and is therefore justified. Moreover, the fact that "the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition" completely undermines your position, as it advocates strongly against the Primacy of Consciousness, whether it applies to volitional entities, such as humans, or 'gods'. The existence of existence is owed to nothing outside it, and that's why the axiom establishes the Primacy of Existence.

Since we're here, I would like to know, if possible, if you ascribe to any of the following positions, if any at all (and if any, why): either that (a) 'god' created the universe (and by implication, the laws that govern it), and afterward "retired" and henceforth does not and cannot interfere in existence as such or ( B ) 'god' dissolved itself into existence that could be subsumed under a pantheistic viewpoint (Deus sive Natura). The only reason I'm asking is that I want a clarification of this volitional entity 'god' "after the moment of creation".

Its a fair label. While I haven't studied Aristotle's argument in depth, from what I have read, my argument is similar but seemingly much more concise...

If we are talking about God's volitional action as the "first action", then it is not difficult to use our own volitional action as analogous to understand it. Volitional action is not without a cause, but it is a very different type of cause then that of reactionary action. Volitional action is and must be non-deterministic in this way (as you seem to hint at). The cause of volitional action is value. The cause of value is consciousness of something which is valuable. So, concerning the first action, the cause would be God's value. Value of what? Himself. God's first action of creation would be the "overflow" of His supreme and invincible delight in all of His perfection. His action of creation as an expression and celebration of His greatness would be the archetype for which all proper human creation is analogous. He would be the ultimate "Egoist" and all of creation would be His expression of His own pleasure in Himself.

And no, this does not imply "escape from causality altogether". Remember that the law of cause and effect states that "every EFFECT must have a cause"...NOT that "every THING must have a cause". Everything which is an effect, by definition has a cause (even if we don't know what it is). If something is not an effect (if it does not have a cause), then that something is eternal. If you think through this, you will realize that there MUST be something which is eternal (without cause)... Atheists assert that it is the universe. I assert that it is God.

Why should anyone accept God over the Universe as the eternal thing??

Because that which is eternal and uncaused must have a nature which enables it to act (not REact) of its own accord... meaning that the eternal thing which is uncaused must be volitional.

Your usage of "Universe" here equates "all existents" with "all physical existents". The axiom that "Existence exists" means that there must be some existent which is eternal (has always existed). There are a number of reasons that the physical universe cannot be the eternal existent which is "existence as such", but one of the primary reasons is the above concerning action. That which exists in and of itself and owe's its existence to nothing outside of or apart from it cannot owe its action to anything outside of or apart from it...meaning that its action must be volitional--owing to nothing but its own contemplation and value of itself.

Here you are making 3 errors.

Firstly, concerning causation, a "thing" is an effect of existence itself (and why we say the universe is eternal and not god, I'll tackle it in the next paragraphs).

Secondly, as others have notoriously pointed out along this thread, you are concept-stealing, and applying them, whilst divorcing them from their context of existence. You cannot divorce "consciousness" from the physical existence of a brain, even if consciousness is not in itself physical. Your claim is considered arbitrary because it fantasizes (sorry if harsh, but for the point of contrast, I considered it appropriate) consciousness out of context and this gives rise to my pointing out to you that you come about as rationalistic because by divorcing concepts from their context (nothing coming into existence, creation ex nihilo etc) you are creating a spiral of logical arguments devoid from reality as can be perceived (reminds me of the "noumenal" postulation of Kant, of which "we cannot know anything about" so why would he?).

Just for the sake of clarification, I bring about this distinction:

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

and point out that whilst your rationalization produces (in this context) valid arguments, as from the premises you state, however it does not and cannot produce a sound argument, given the fact that the premises cannot be true since their formation requires divorcing concepts from reality.

If it were permissible that such a divorce of concepts were possible, even within the realm of consciousness, then one could stop at nothing when fantasizing about life (as in the existence of consciousness) after death. Since the divorce is a contradiction, then "life after death" does not follow, because consciousness requires a physical brain, and by the same measures, your divorcing of consciousness to explain a volitional entity that brought about existence is necessary invalid.

Now, thirdly, and I would say this is your gravest error and unforgivable, is the assumption of the Primacy of Consciousness, and I would be surprised if the others wouldn't berate (did I use this correctly?) you for doing so, after all your arguments thus far. As per the parts I bolded out and your argument as a whole, I offer you the true meaning of the axiom of existence (bolded mine):

[quote name='“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24']

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.

Your argument fails at this point due to your contradiction in assuming both the Primacy of Consciousness and the Axiom of Existence.

You agreed that existence exists, but you required a volitional consciousness in order to bring about its existence, and in this point you are contradictory and invalidated.

You divorced the concept of consciousness (the faculty of perceiving of that which exists) from its context and not only committed the fallacy of the stolen concept as others have pointed out, but made a contradictory statement about its nature (if god, a consciousness brought about existence, and the consciousness is the faculty of perceiving of that which exists, then god would firstly be conscious of nothing but itself, which is the Primacy of Consciousness explicitly), as per "the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness)"

(You also divorced the concepts of volitional action and value from their context and proposed the concept of "supernaturalism" without it being able to be validated by relation to reality [since it would be superreality], but at this point this is just a nitpick - and furthermore, you have failed to grasp or understand the fact that divorcing these concepts [to apply them where you require them - which I guess would "contradict their nature", for they were not meant for such contexts as you put forth] is in itself invalid, a process you started when you failed to understand, despite numerous objections in this thread, how concepts are formed and thus you did not see the invalidity of misplacing them out of context)

Finally, you advocated plainly the Primacy of Consciousness when conceding "God's first action of creation", an epistemological stance that invalidates your whole inquiry into the subject, in the form you have presented it so far and is contradictory, not only to your support of the Axiom of Existence but also to your claim of understanding anything on Objectivist Epistemology (since it leads to this contradiction, as I have made clear enough). And please notice that I did not at any point mention determinism, as I believe it is irrelevant to the issue at hand in any form whatsoever.

To be honest, at this point, if you still continue in your assertions in the forms presented thus far, ignoring the contradiction of what the Axiom of Existence really means and what you are purporting it to mean, whilst proposing the Primacy of Consciousness, whilst it is clearly false, then your enterprise with epistemology is a hollow one and not meriting further consideration, as shown above, by your (1) context divorced concepts, (2) contradiction of what you say about the Axiom of Existence and how it was clearly enunciated by Ayn Rand (leading you further into unwarranted dichotomies and further usage of stolen concepts) and (3) your admittance of the Primacy of Consciousness, an invalid position, one that if you will continue to hold would mean your being here on this forum is a redundant venture.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Xall

[Jacob86]

Here is where I believe you are creating an unwarranted dichotomy. If you take 'existence exists', it is of sufficient nature to cause both reactions and actions to take place and I do not see how the postulation of the necessity of a volitional entity would supersede that and is therefore justified.

Not sure I follow you here... How does "existence exists" sufficiently supply nature for both action and reaction? Remember, an entity (which exists) can only act according to its nature. Any given entity is either reactionary by nature or volitional by nature (in respect to its action). Since the action of all reactionary entities is by nature dependent on prior action and since there is action, there must be a volitional entity.

I don't see how "existence exists" gets you around this problem...

Moreover, the fact that "the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition" completely undermines your position, as it advocates strongly against the Primacy of Consciousness, whether it applies to volitional entities, such as humans, or 'gods'. The existence of existence is owed to nothing outside it, and that's why the axiom establishes the Primacy of Existence.

Did I ever advocate Primacy of Consciousness? More below...

Since we're here, I would like to know, if possible, if you ascribe to any of the following positions, if any at all (and if any, why): either that (a) 'god' created the universe (and by implication, the laws that govern it), and afterward "retired" and henceforth does not and cannot interfere in existence as such or ( B ) 'god' dissolved itself into existence that could be subsumed under a pantheistic viewpoint (Deus sive Natura). The only reason I'm asking is that I want a clarification of this volitional entity 'god' "after the moment of creation".

No. I absolutely reject both views as irrational. But I would rather wait on that discussion until more of the details of the current discussion are cleared up.

Here you are making 3 errors.

Firstly, concerning causation, a "thing" is an effect of existence itself (and why we say the universe is eternal and not god, I'll tackle it in the next paragraphs).

Not sure that I understand what you mean by "a thing is an effect of existence itself"... or how it relates to the debate?

Secondly, as others have notoriously pointed out along this thread, you are concept-stealing, and applying them, whilst divorcing them from their context of existence. You cannot divorce "consciousness" from the physical existence of a brain, even if consciousness is not in itself physical.

So, you are saying that my position is IMPOSSIBLE because we have never experienced a consciousness apart from a physical brain and therefore it is impossible for God who is not physical to be conscious?

My position is not concept-stealing...it is concept-widening. The essential pieces of the concept of consciousness are retained by my position (that consciousness is conscious of something, etc...). Further, remember that my argument is that any view other than this is ILLOGICAL. So, merely saying "we've never experienced anything like that" is not an adequate objection. You must first show how atheism is not illogical in respect to my argument. Then you can accuse me of "arbitrarily" widening these concepts or using them in new ways...but only when you have demonstrated that there is no basis at all for there being a God. If there is a basis for there being a God, then the fact that we have never experienced consciousness apart from a physical brain is really a moot point.

Your claim is considered arbitrary because it fantasizes (sorry if harsh, but for the point of contrast, I considered it appropriate) consciousness out of context and this gives rise to my pointing out to you that you come about as rationalistic because by divorcing concepts from their context (nothing coming into existence, creation ex nihilo etc) you are creating a spiral of logical arguments devoid from reality as can be perceived (reminds me of the "noumenal" postulation of Kant, of which "we cannot know anything about" so why would he?).

Careful. It is clear that your smears here are a result of misunderstanding my position, so I will "let it slide". I have stressed a few times that my position does NOT hold to the idea that "nothing came into existence". My position also does not advocate the Primacy of Consciousness or that a there could be consciousness apart from an existent, et...

and point out that whilst your rationalization produces (in this context) valid arguments, as from the premises you state, however it does not and cannot produce a sound argument, given the fact that the premises cannot be true since their formation requires divorcing concepts from reality.

I beg to differ.

1) My premises are the law of identity as quoted by John Galt and the fact that there is action.

2) My conclusion is that there is a volitional entity responsible for action (God).

3) As shown above and below, your accusation that I am divorcing concepts from reality is false. I may be suggesting new uses of the concepts (which is done almost all the time as new information is discovered about reality). Remember, if my conclusion (that God exists) follows from my premises (that there is action and that the law of identity in relation to action is valid), then God is part of "reality" and to speak about Him with wider or newer connotations of the concepts being used is not to divorce the concepts from reality (since He has been proven to be real). So, again, you must address my argument and show how it does not necessitate the existence of God if you are going to accuse me of using these concepts in an unwarranted way. Otherwise, the new use of a concept is a moot point.

Now, thirdly, and I would say this is your gravest error and unforgivable, is the assumption of the Primacy of Consciousness, and I would be surprised if the others wouldn't berate (did I use this correctly?) you for doing so, after all your arguments thus far. As per the parts I bolded out and your argument as a whole, I offer you the true meaning of the axiom of existence (bolded mine):

Your argument fails at this point due to your contradiction in assuming both the Primacy of Consciousness and the Axiom of Existence.

You agreed that existence exists, but you required a volitional consciousness in order to bring about its existence, and in this point you are contradictory and invalidated.

You divorced the concept of consciousness (the faculty of perceiving of that which exists) from its context and not only committed the fallacy of the stolen concept as others have pointed out, but made a contradictory statement about its nature (if god, a consciousness brought about existence, and the consciousness is the faculty of perceiving of that which exists, then god would firstly be conscious of nothing but itself, which is the Primacy of Consciousness explicitly), as per "the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness)"

Remember, my argument is that God exists and He is conscious...NOT that God is Pure Consciousness...but that God exists and is conscious. What is He conscious of? Himself. Not primarily His consciousness. He is conscious of His own existence. This does not violate the axiom of existence and it does not assert primacy of consciousness. It does assert the primacy of an existent which is conscious. But if you wish to argue that it is impossible for an existent to be conscious of its own existence, then you must reject the ability for Man to conscious of his own existence...which reeks of Altruism ironically enough.

Again, you are severely misunderstanding my position and attacking a straw man. I don't think you are doing it on purpose, so I don't blame you for it, but I do need to correct you.

My position is NOT that God "brought about existence" as if nothing existed before He created existence. This would mean that God had to exist and not exist at the same time and same respect. My position is that God exists and that he "brought about" all OTHER existents.

To be honest, at this point, if you still continue in your assertions in the forms presented thus far, ignoring the contradiction of what the Axiom of Existence really means and what you are purporting it to mean, whilst proposing the Primacy of Consciousness, whilst it is clearly false, then your enterprise with epistemology is a hollow one and not meriting further consideration, as shown above, by your (1) context divorced concepts, (2) contradiction of what you say about the Axiom of Existence and how it was clearly enunciated by Ayn Rand (leading you further into unwarranted dichotomies and further usage of stolen concepts) and (3) your admittance of the Primacy of Consciousness, an invalid position, one that if you will continue to hold would mean your being here on this forum is a redundant venture.

Again, I will be easy on you because I am convinced that you have simply misunderstood my position. But it is very frustrating (and disappointing) that the only "objections" on this thread have been in the form of the following:

1) Attacks against ridiculous straw men which do not resemble my position in any way- whether it was a result of misunderstanding or a purposeful ignorance.

2) Incoherent Epistemological Standards which cannot be consistently applied to anything without invalidating all knowledge.

3) Accusations of "concept stealing" because I have suggested the necessity of a new use or understanding of a concept... this third one is usually just a mixture of the first two.

All of which seems very much to be inline with the common tactics of evasion.

[Greebo]

So, you are saying that my position is IMPOSSIBLE because we have never experienced a consciousness apart from a physical brain and therefore it is impossible for God who is not physical to be conscious?

No.

We're saying its ARBITRARY.

[bobgo]

If the determnist viewpoint is accepted, how could knowledge of anything, including free-will, be evaluated as true/false, correct/incorrect, right/wrong? After all, whatever has been 'determined' is 'destined' to be.

I agree with your questions. But is not a computer able to distinguish between true/false, correct/incorrect, right/wrong?

And computer actions are completely determined.

The same could be for us. Only, we are not conscious of that.

[Jacob86]

No.

We're saying its ARBITRARY.

Remember that you agreed that a claim is arbitrary if there is no reason to believe that it is true. I have submitted reasons to believe my claim is true. If you you disagree, then you must demonstrate the flaws in my reasoning. To ignore the reasons I have submitted for my claim and to denounce it as arbitrary in spite of the fact that I have submitted firm reasons for the claim is nothing more than evasion.

When you say it is "arbitrary" you are saying "there is no reason to believe its true".

I am saying "look; here's a bunch of reasons to believe that its true".

And you are militantly refusing to look at the the reasons while declaring "its arbitrary its arbitrary its arbitrary" in blind rebellion.

Such tactics could be (and often are) used by any anti-intellectual altruist.

Simply declaring something as arbitrary does not make it arbitrary. To declare that a claim is arbitrary, you must demonstrate that it is void of any reason to back it up. If someone claims reasons to back it up, then you must demonstrate the flaws in their reasoning.

So far, no one has submitted any flaws to my reasoning. Rather, the only submissions seem to have been in the form of Straw-Men (whether accidental or purposeful mis-understanding of my reasoning), or random assertions that I am being arbitrary while blanking out the fact that I have submitted arguments and reasons to back up my claim.

[Greebo]

I agree with your questions. But is not a computer able to distinguish between true/false, correct/incorrect, right/wrong?

And computer actions are completely determined.

The same could be for us. Only, we are not conscious of that.

Do you feel like you have no choices?

[Xall]

So, you are saying that my position is IMPOSSIBLE because we have never experienced a consciousness apart from a physical brain and therefore it is impossible for God who is not physical to be conscious?

My position is not concept-stealing...it is concept-widening. The essential pieces of the concept of consciousness are retained by my position (that consciousness is conscious of something, etc...). Further, remember that my argument is that any view other than this is ILLOGICAL. So, merely saying "we've never experienced anything like that" is not an adequate objection. You must first show how atheism is not illogical in respect to my argument. Then you can accuse me of "arbitrarily" widening these concepts or using them in new ways...but only when you have demonstrated that there is no basis at all for there being a God. If there is a basis for there being a God, then the fact that we have never experienced consciousness apart from a physical brain is really a moot point.

"We've never experienced anything like that" is your attempt, I think, at projecting empiricism. You made another attempt in a previous post, in showing that the Objectivist positions on epistemology were somehow inconsistent along this whole thread, yet you misunderstood. As with justice, you can't "point" at it, however you can reduce it to something perceivable. It's not empiricism, but it uses logic; it's not only logic, it requires perception. Postulating a consciousness as you do, is reducible (because, in your own words, we haven't experienced something like that) only to mid-streamed formed logical arguments which IS rationalism and an arbitrary assertion.

Careful. It is clear that your smears here are a result of misunderstanding my position, so I will "let it slide". I have stressed a few times that my position does NOT hold to the idea that "nothing came into existence". My position also does not advocate the Primacy of Consciousness or that a there could be consciousness apart from an existent, et...

Well, if you didn't, how do you otherwise explain this?:

But, as I pointed out above, "creation" for God would mean "bringing something into existence" rather than "acting upon that which already exists".

Unless the meaning of the words is foreign to me, I don't see how it does mean anything else.

Remember, my argument is that God exists and He is conscious...NOT that God is Pure Consciousness...but that God exists and is conscious. What is He conscious of? Himself. Not primarily His consciousness. He is conscious of His own existence. This does not violate the axiom of existence and it does not assert primacy of consciousness. It does assert the primacy of an existent which is conscious. But if you wish to argue that it is impossible for an existent to be conscious of its own existence, then you must reject the ability for Man to conscious of his own existence...which reeks of Altruism ironically enough.

Again, you are severely misunderstanding my position and attacking a straw man. I don't think you are doing it on purpose, so I don't blame you for it, but I do need to correct you.

My position is NOT that God "brought about existence" as if nothing existed before He created existence. This would mean that God had to exist and not exist at the same time and same respect. My position is that God exists and that he "brought about" all OTHER existents.

Again, I will be easy on you because I am convinced that you have simply misunderstood my position. But it is very frustrating (and disappointing) that the only "objections" on this thread have been in the form of the following:

1) Attacks against ridiculous straw men which do not resemble my position in any way- whether it was a result of misunderstanding or a purposeful ignorance.

2) Incoherent Epistemological Standards which cannot be consistently applied to anything without invalidating all knowledge.

3) Accusations of "concept stealing" because I have suggested the necessity of a new use or understanding of a concept... this third one is usually just a mixture of the first two.

All of which seems very much to be inline with the common tactics of evasion.

This contradictory position of yours, how do you reconcile it with

"The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness)" whilst negating that it is also NOT the Primacy of Consciousness, as defined "the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). "?

Because I can't otherwise see that it is not contradictory in that sense. Since you clearly assert that the "bringing into existence" implies the consciousness you identify as god...how can you reconcile this with the fact that existence exists independent of ANY consciousness...