Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Jacob , I regrettably don't have the time I'd like to address many past posts. I will respond more when able.

For now Id like to reiterate that I previously explained that "ex nihilo" creation in NO way follows from your argument for a necessary first actor. You have to make a seperate argument for this usage. You would have to justify your usage by A). Perceptual evidence or , B). Necessity. ( In order for you to remain consistent with your premises)

Also I may have forgotten or missed it , but have you explained why the position that there have always been a multiplicity of both living and non living entites is wrong?

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Ok. At least it seems that we both agree that Rationalism and Empiricism are bad. Let me give a VERY quick summary of my understanding of each and tell me if you agree:

1)Rationalism: If a claim is not illogical, it should be considered true. Therefore unicorns, leprechauns, etc.. are all valid concepts representing reality since they do not commit any inherent contradictions.

2)Empiricism: Only that which can be observed/tested through sense perception can be considered true. Therefore all ideas about justice, morality, free will, logic, society, etc.. are mere pragmatic contrivances that have nothing to do with reality.

Now, let me say that I reject both. You obviously seem to think that I am a Rationalist in my argument for the existence of God. But I would like to point out a major difference. My argument does not say "The idea of God is not illogical, and therefore it is true"...This WOULD be a Rationalistic argument. My argument looks at something empirical (action), then at the Law of Identity in respect to action, then analyzes both and concludes that it would be a contradiction to say that God does not exist.

So far the best objections from the Atheist position IS assuming Empiricism in this particular issue. So far, the accusation that my argument is arbitrary has been basically "but we can't see it and we've never experienced anything like that and therefore it shouldn't be considered". The implicit assumption in this is that everything which is not observable is arbitrary. Now, the Oist obviously can't hold to that consistently, and he doesn't. The Objectivist seems to only apply this rabid Empiricism on this issue. My contention is that if it is to be applied to this argument (concerning God) then it should be applied to everything else.

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

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

Again, you are equating the physical universe with existence as such. I claim that God is "existence as such" or "the eternal necessary self-existent existent"...that His existence did not pop up out of nothing, but rather that He always has and always will exist. That quote was a description of God's act in creating OTHER existents.

Remember "Existence exists" means that there must be an eternal self-existent existent. You say its the universe. I say its God. My argument concerning motion gives some fairly good reason to side with my position.

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

"Contradictory position" of mine? Where's the contradiction?

On the contrary, how do you reconcile your position with 1)The law of Identity, or 2)The fact that there is action??

"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). "?

This quote ASSUMES that "the universe" (meaning the physical universe) is all that exists. If you replace "the universe" with "existence as such", I completely agree with it. God's existence is not dependent upon His consciousness or any other consciousness...it could not be since "existence as such" cannot be dependent upon consciousness (because of the primacy of existence). However, the primacy of existence does NOT mean that no particular existent can be dependent upon consciousness. The ideas in my head are "existents" and they depend upon my consciousness. The revolutionary "Rearden Metal" was an existent which was dependent upon Rearden's sharply disciplined consciousness. The primacy of existence means that existence as such cannot be dependent upon consciousness....but many particular existents (like...all the physical existents in the physical universe) COULD be dependent upon consciousness.

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...

Existence exists independent of any consciousness.

Which existent exists independent of any consciousness?

God exists independent of any consciousness...and He is conscious.

Its really very simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existence and existants are not synonyms. Do not use them as such.

You say "God's existence is not dependent upon His consciousness or any other consciousness"

Is your existence dependent upon your consciousness?

Your argument is that God existed and he brought about all other existants.

You have not, I think, addressed my point earlier that the act of creation requires something for the created to be created from. The actor who does the creating does not start with nothing - he creates something out of something else.

Relating to all physical existants, we can safely say that they are made of energy, for instance, but the creation of matter necessarily requires that the energy exist in order to be made into said matter.

If God made all other physical existants, he had to do so with energy that already existed.

Put enough energy in one place and you get matter anyway - so why does that require a prime mover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. At least it seems that we both agree that Rationalism and Empiricism are bad. Let me give a VERY quick summary of my understanding of each and tell me if you agree:

1)Rationalism: If a claim is not illogical, it should be considered true. Therefore unicorns, leprechauns, etc.. are all valid concepts representing reality since they do not commit any inherent contradictions.

2)Empiricism: Only that which can be observed/tested through sense perception can be considered true. Therefore all ideas about justice, morality, free will, logic, society, etc.. are mere pragmatic contrivances that have nothing to do with reality.

Now, let me say that I reject both. You obviously seem to think that I am a Rationalist in my argument for the existence of God. But I would like to point out a major difference. My argument does not say "The idea of God is not illogical, and therefore it is true"...This WOULD be a Rationalistic argument. My argument looks at something empirical (action), then at the Law of Identity in respect to action, then analyzes both and concludes that it would be a contradiction to say that God does not exist.

This is what is meant from my part as Rationalism:

The attempt to do deductive logic not based upon any observations is what we call rationalism, which means one's deductions are not tied to reality, which means they are worthless conclusions.

That's why everyone is insisting that your position is arbitrary (amongst others)...I further concluded that it is rationalist because it only results from deductions which are not validated by reality, and I think Rand dealt with such an issue by way of Kant's "noumenal" world, which as your concept (god), was not available to perception, only to some arbitrary deduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Jacob,

I follow your laudable efforts to logically demonstrate Transcendence.

My purpose is very close to yours. But I’m persuaded that rational demonstration of God is not possible. So, I’m afraid your efforts will not be rewarded.

I read your post #182 where you confirm what I already thought it was your mind. Your way is to follow rationality, but that way does not have any possibility to succeed.

To work, rationality needs concepts that are not rationally demonstrable, because they are its foundations. No one system is able to support its own foundations.

Looking for God you are trying to catch the Foundation of all foundations! That is truly not possible by rationality.

To me, the way to become certain of God has to follow a different path.

That is, we have to push our rational view of existence to its extreme consequences. That was the way Kant followed.

Throwing away any possible transcendence (anything we take for sure but that is not rationally demonstrate) we are using to explain existence (like a “supernatural Soul”), we will come inevitably to antinomies, tautologies, contradictions. Those are the borders where our rationality is confined. No way to cross them.

Furthermore, excluding any transcendent entity... pretending only rational understanding... we will come to face existentially (that is with our heart) what rational view of existence truly means. That rational view meaning it’s a desert! The abyss where nothing has value anymore.

But that desert would be able to make us jumping to the Transcendence.

Just for a moment, because we would be back at once (Transcendence is not here).

The best, and I suppose the only gift God gives us, it is that God it’s not here.

That is the best gift He should give us: life is possible only because of His absence.

The absence Jesus saw dieing.

His absence is necessary, there is not God because He is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what is meant from my part as Rationalism:

That's why everyone is insisting that your position is arbitrary (amongst others)...I further concluded that it is rationalist because it only results from deductions which are not validated by reality, and I think Rand dealt with such an issue by way of Kant's "noumenal" world, which as your concept (god), was not available to perception, only to some arbitrary deduction.

So you do not count the following as "connections to reality"?:

1) There is actoin.

2) The law of identity as quoted by Galt states that an entity can only act according to its nature.

These are the two premises of my argument. The rest is logical deduction, but they depend on these two premises being true.

So you have two options:

1)Deny the truthfulness of one or both of these premises

OR

2)Point out the flaws in my logical deduction from these premises to my conclusion.

But you do not have the option to evade the issue by declaring it arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you feel like you have no choices?

I feel me having free will. Without that feeling I should be annihilated.

But, my rational view of reality denies that feeling. That feeling, from my rational viewpoint, it’s un illusion.

Nothing can demonstrate that my free will it’s true.

That is a very strange situation...

I’m not even able to want me be wanting...

I can only be wanting or be not wanting, but I can not order me to want something.

As... I can just be loving or be not loving, but I’m not able to want me be loving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existence and existants are not synonyms. Do not use them as such.

You say "God's existence is not dependent upon His consciousness or any other consciousness"

Is your existence dependent upon your consciousness?

No. But I don't understand the point of this question..?

Your argument is that God existed and he brought about all other existants.

You have not, I think, addressed my point earlier that the act of creation requires something for the created to be created from. The actor who does the creating does not start with nothing - he creates something out of something else.

Yes. In our experience, the act of creation uses other pre-existent material. But it does not follow that God would not be able to bring into existence things which previously did not exist. However, as Plasmatic pointed out above, I have not (I think) sufficiently demonstrated that God must have created other things "ex nihilo". You brought the issue up (and I do agree with it) as a potential contradiction, but I have not spelled out specifically why it is necessary to hold to such a position. Right now, I am only defending the position as non-contradictory because I do plan on getting to it eventually. But for now, I'd really like to focus on the issue of the existence of God with you.... we can work out details about God (Theology) and how/why He created other things after His existence is established.

Relating to all physical existants, we can safely say that they are made of energy, for instance, but the creation of matter necessarily requires that the energy exist in order to be made into said matter.

If God made all other physical existants, he had to do so with energy that already existed.

I don't see the problem here. There's no reason to think that God would lack any amount of energy.

Put enough energy in one place and you get matter anyway - so why does that require a prime mover?

I'm not sure what you mean here (perhaps I need to just do some cursory study of physics). Do you mean that enough energy in one place results in previously non-existent matter coming into existence? And forgive my ignorance, but doesn't energy necessarily imply one or more entities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob,

I follow your laudable efforts to logically demonstrate Transcendence.

My purpose is very close to yours. But I’m persuaded that rational demonstration of God is not possible. So, I’m afraid your efforts will not be rewarded.

I read your post #182 where you confirm what I already thought it was your mind. Your way is to follow rationality, but that way does not have any possibility to succeed.

To work, rationality needs concepts that are not rationally demonstrable, because they are its foundations. No one system is able to support its own foundations.

Looking for God you are trying to catch the Foundation of all foundations! That is truly not possible by rationality.

To me, the way to become certain of God has to follow a different path.

That is, we have to push our rational view of existence to its extreme consequences. That was the way Kant followed.

Throwing away any possible transcendence (anything we take for sure but that is not rationally demonstrate) we are using to explain existence (like a “supernatural Soul”), we will come inevitably to antinomies, tautologies, contradictions. Those are the borders where our rationality is confined. No way to cross them.

Furthermore, excluding any transcendent entity... pretending only rational understanding... we will come to face existentially (that is with our heart) what rational view of existence truly means. That rational view meaning it’s a desert! The abyss where nothing has value anymore.

But that desert would be able to make us jumping to the Transcendence.

Just for a moment, because we would be back at once (Transcendence is not here).

The best, and I suppose the only gift God gives us, it is that God it’s not here.

That is the best gift He should give us: life is possible only because of His absence.

The absence Jesus saw dieing.

His absence is necessary, there is not God because He is.

You seem very confused and I feel for you because you seem to have a potentially great mind (as someone else previously pointed out). I think your problem is your skepticism. You seem to doubt everything.

Above, you say that no one system can support itself. You also seem to equate tautologies with contradictions. These two assumptions are devastating to any knowledge. A is A is wholly self-contained and needs no further foundation. If you are to plug anything in placement of the variable "A", then it does require something further: perception. But that which is immediately perceived is also self-evident or self-contained in a way. There is no getting around "A is A" and there is no getting around any idea which accurately plugs perceptual data into that equation. This is the foundation for which there is no other foundation. Understanding this liberates your mind in the realization that you are able and free to be certain about anything and everything in reality that your mind can handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you do not count the following as "connections to reality"?:

1) There is actoin.

2) The law of identity as quoted by Galt states that an entity can only act according to its nature.

These are the two premises of my argument. The rest is logical deduction, but they depend on these two premises being true.

So you have two options:

1)Deny the truthfulness of one or both of these premises

OR

2)Point out the flaws in my logical deduction from these premises to my conclusion.

But you do not have the option to evade the issue by declaring it arbitrary.

Your flaw is the assumption of something "else", the necessity of a "cause" (in the sense that it *causes action*).

As per "All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe[...]are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.", existence does not require a cause and as such (as you put it) action and reaction are both contained within it.

You proceed to postulate an "outside cause", 'god', that does not rest on your two premises. Yes, entities act according to their own nature. React (to use your words) if they are non-volitional, act of their own accord (your words) if they are volitional.

Because the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition (its nature being in this sense reaction), I don't consider necessary a "prior" action for there to be any reaction whatsoever. If it is in the nature of nature that elements react (requiring no "prior" action, only the existence of existence), then by the fact that we are volitional (something I can validate, consciousness), it means that contained within existence, the elements interact in such a manner that they can be reactionary or actionary (my browser underlines this word, I'm not sure what else to use here).

Your statement, "unless there is an entity which by nature can act on its own rather than REact, then there would be no action" is the Primacy of Consciousness because you necessitate a volitional "action" for there to be subsequent reaction and action. I would say that the fact that I can validate my own consciousness as a volitional entity fits perfectly under the "forms, motions, combinations" that can eventually give rise "from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life" and further to the formation of consciousness from a simple "biological reactionary being". Existence exists, therefore the elements contained within it possess both action and reaction (your words). There is no logical necessity - you are postulating, from this point of view, the arbitrary. I conclude than there is no "cause" for my being volitional other than the interaction of elements within existence (and this is not determinism).

As for the Primacy of Consciousness, you deny asserting it, however you attribute god both the identity of a consciousness (being volitional in nature) and claiming that it is "existence as such". So which one is it? If god were existence and also would possess a consciousness this would render the primacy issue moot since they would be interchangeable. Your postulation requires a metaphysics based on the Primacy of Consciousness (because god is both volitional and eternal, therefore consciousness is eternal...)

Existence exists independent of any consciousness.

Which existent exists independent of any consciousness?

God exists independent of any consciousness...and He is conscious.

The first statement is self-sufficient, the second one is a non-sequitur and I don't see your reason for positing it at all, the first one subsumes that all its elements, 'existents', exist independently of consciousness. You cannot add to everything and expect everything + 1, or everything that is everything but also not quite.

Edited by Xall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob , I regrettably don't have the time I'd like to address many past posts. I will respond more when able.

For now Id like to reiterate that I previously explained that "ex nihilo" creation in NO way follows from your argument for a necessary first actor. You have to make a seperate argument for this usage. You would have to justify your usage by A). Perceptual evidence or , B). Necessity. ( In order for you to remain consistent with your premises)

You're absolutely right! :)

I haven't (yet) clearly established the necessity of God creating "ex nihilo". It was brought up rather early after my action argument as an objection by Greebo. He assumed (rightly) that I held to this view of God and he commenced to attack it as contradictory...then I responded in defense of it (since I do plan on getting there).... So we did sort of "jump the gun" there. I do plan to work that out, but for now I'd like to focus on clearly establishing the existence of God...then we can work out details about Him and His actions.

Also I may have forgotten or missed it , but have you explained why the position that there have always been a multiplicity of both living and non living entites is wrong?

I think I addressed it, but it would take me much longer to locate the post then to just re-write it. :)

I will respond mostly in respect to the living entities in this position (although I think my response could generally apply to both classes).

A living entity is, itself, either the result of previous action (whether volitional or reactionary) OR the living entity is eternal. If the living entities suggested by this position are of the first class (results of previous action), then it only takes the problem one step back.

It seems the only way this position could "solve" the problem is to suggest that the living entities are eternal. But that seems like somewhat of a step in the wrong direction for you because instead of one God, you now have many Gods (Polytheism).

I'd be happy to address the problems with polytheism, but I assume that this is not a position which you wish to defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem very confused and I feel for you because you seem to have a potentially great mind (as someone else previously pointed out). I think your problem is your skepticism. You seem to doubt everything.

Above, you say that no one system can support itself. You also seem to equate tautologies with contradictions. These two assumptions are devastating to any knowledge. A is A is wholly self-contained and needs no further foundation. If you are to plug anything in placement of the variable "A", then it does require something further: perception. But that which is immediately perceived is also self-evident or self-contained in a way. There is no getting around "A is A" and there is no getting around any idea which accurately plugs perceptual data into that equation. This is the foundation for which there is no other foundation. Understanding this liberates your mind in the realization that you are able and free to be certain about anything and everything in reality that your mind can handle.

May be I put too many irons in the fire...

Let me only say:

A is A is the basis for rationality. Without this law no rational thought is possible.

But... extending that law to all reality it’s the worst mistake we can make.

In physical world, meaning A as an entity, A is never equal to A!

Because there is nowhere something we can say that’s Being!

To be something equal it must remain the same Being between two different instants.

While nothing remains the same, even after an infinitesimal time.

What we call entity, it’s never equal to it self.

The low of identity is very important for our rationality, but it is only a concept that does not correspond to physical world.

We usually think that stopping time our world will remain frozen as it was when time stopped.

That is completely wrong! Stopping time everything would disappear!

Edited by bobgo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll address a different point first

So you do not count the following as "connections to reality"?:

1) There is action.

2) The law of identity as quoted by Galt states that an entity can only act according to its nature.

These do connect to reality.

What doesn't connect to reality are the dozen other steps you bypassed to get to "if action then volition".

There is math.

Two of any entity plus two more of any entity will yield four of any entity.

2 unicorns + 2 unicorns = 4 unicorns.

Therefore there are unicorns.

Two of the above statements are grounded in reality. The argument, on the whole, however, is not, because:

1) Math doesn't need to apply to real objects

2) Nothing NECESSITATES unicorns

NECESSITATE God and we'll talk. You can only present a questionably plausible beginning involving God.

No. But I don't understand the point of this question..?

Really? If you had no consciousness - would you exist?

Yes. In our experience, the act of creation uses other pre-existent material. But it does not follow that God would not be able to bring into existence things which previously did not exist. However, as Plasmatic pointed out above, I have not (I think) sufficiently demonstrated that God must have created other things "ex nihilo". You brought the issue up (and I do agree with it) as a potential contradiction, but I have not spelled out specifically why it is necessary to hold to such a position. Right now, I am only defending the position as non-contradictory because I do plan on getting to it eventually. But for now, I'd really like to focus on the issue of the existence of God with you.... we can work out details about God (Theology) and how/why He created other things after His existence is established.

Contradictory? I do not believe I've called your position contradictory.

Arbitrary != Contradictory

I could pose a non-contradictory argument for the existence of invisible aliens who are pushing our galaxies apart at an ever increasing rate. You would never be able to disprove it. It would be just as valid as your argument for God.

Until you can demonstrate that by necessity god MUST exist you cannot say he is grounded in reality.

I don't see the problem here. There's no reason to think that God would lack any amount of energy.

But since energy can coalesce into matter on its own, and since matter interacts with matter on its own, God is hardly necessary.

I'm not sure what you mean here (perhaps I need to just do some cursory study of physics). Do you mean that enough energy in one place results in previously non-existent matter coming into existence? And forgive my ignorance, but doesn't energy necessarily imply one or more entities?

Yes, and no.

Theoretical astrophysics suggests that one possible origin of the present state of the universe is that there was not a big bang, but rather a big inflation where an extreme quantity of energy rapidly expanded at temperatures (heat energy) so hot that no matter could exist. As the energy spread and thinned and thus cooled, it began to coalesce into matter - subatomic matter and anti-matter particles which, fortunately, were not in perfect balance, leaving behind sufficient matter to form our universe, which gradually formed itself into hydrogen and helium, and from there we eventually get to stars.

Now I'm not saying that this particular theory is correct - it is merely plausible. It was reached by taking known properties of existence and working backwards. To date, no information which invalidates the theory has been identified, and the theory is completely (to the best of my knowledge) rooted in scientific fact which was then built upon with suppositions that explain one possible beginning. This is a completely non-contradictory theory about the beginning of the known universe. That doesn't make it true - it just makes it a theory.

Further, such theories do not induce - they only deduce. They ask what constituent parts which must have existed prior could have led to the now. Matter and Energy in THIS pattern could have come from THAT pattern which could have come from THAT pattern... and eventually we are down to only energy in THIS pattern... and then we have no idea but we know Energy must have existed.

YOUR theory, however, induces - it says, "How can we insert God as the cause?" God is not a demonstrable component of everything - so including him in the 'pre-everything' scenarios is not justified. You keep Matter and Energy - but you INJECT God at the beginning to take it one step further - as if the existence of some magical fantastic being who isn't bound to the laws of existence solves anything in any rational capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel me having free will. Without that feeling I should be annihilated.

But, my rational view of reality denies that feeling. That feeling, from my rational viewpoint, it’s un illusion.

My rational view of reality dictates that since you are a self declared automaton there is no reason for me to continue discussions with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll address a different point first

These do connect to reality.

What doesn't connect to reality are the dozen other steps you bypassed to get to "if action then volition".

Dozens huh? It seemed pretty straight forward to me. The other options are:

1)Posit that an entity at some point acted against its nature - Deny LOI

2)Posit the possibility of an "infinite regress" (non-existent series) - Deny LOI

3)Posit that action is an illusion- Deny Perceptual Self-evident fact

Unless you know of a fourth option?

There is math.

Two of any entity plus two more of any entity will yield four of any entity.

2 unicorns + 2 unicorns = 4 unicorns.

Therefore there are unicorns.

Two of the above statements are grounded in reality. The argument, on the whole, however, is not, because:

1) Math doesn't need to apply to real objects

2) Nothing NECESSITATES unicorns

NECESSITATE God and we'll talk. You can only present a questionably plausible beginning involving God.

If you are not sufficiently convinced that I have "necessitated" the existence of God, then it is sufficient to say so and to spell out your reasoning against mine.

The "arbitrary" unicorn bull crap is getting old. You know that I am not attempting to slip in some ridiculous idea like "unicorns"..so stop pretending that I am. You should know very well by now that I am putting forth an ARGUMENT for the existence of God-- not some random arbitrary assertion that is not based in reality.

Really? If you had no consciousness - would you exist?

Ya...I could be knocked unconscious and still exist. What exactly is your point here?? It seems that you are trying to suggest a primacy of consciousness position...which I know you wouldn't do...so I'm confused.

I could pose a non-contradictory argument for the existence of invisible aliens who are pushing our galaxies apart at an ever increasing rate. You would never be able to disprove it. It would be just as valid as your argument for God.

again...these accusations are getting old. You know that I agree with you about the issue of arbitrary assertions so please stop pretending that I don't.

Until you can demonstrate that by necessity god MUST exist you cannot say he is grounded in reality.

And THAT would be the point of my argument. I believe I have demonstrated the necessity. I am kindly asking you to point out why you disagree with my reasoning.

But since energy can coalesce into matter on its own, and since matter interacts with matter on its own, God is hardly necessary.

By "on its own" here, do you mean volitionally? I think not. Either an entity acts volitionally or as a reaction.... more below.

Theoretical astrophysics suggests that one possible origin of the present state of the universe is that there was not a big bang, but rather a big inflation where an extreme quantity of energy rapidly expanded at temperatures (heat energy) so hot that no matter could exist. As the energy spread and thinned and thus cooled, it began to coalesce into matter - subatomic matter and anti-matter particles which, fortunately, were not in perfect balance, leaving behind sufficient matter to form our universe, which gradually formed itself into hydrogen and helium, and from there we eventually get to stars.

Now I'm not saying that this particular theory is correct - it is merely plausible. It was reached by taking known properties of existence and working backwards. To date, no information which invalidates the theory has been identified, and the theory is completely (to the best of my knowledge) rooted in scientific fact which was then built upon with suppositions that explain one possible beginning. This is a completely non-contradictory theory about the beginning of the known universe. That doesn't make it true - it just makes it a theory.

Further, such theories do not induce - they only deduce. They ask what constituent parts which must have existed prior could have led to the now. Matter and Energy in THIS pattern could have come from THAT pattern which could have come from THAT pattern... and eventually we are down to only energy in THIS pattern... and then we have no idea but we know Energy must have existed.

Again, please see my argument. None of this (even if it is true) says ANYTHING about my argument. This (and the rest of physics) is just details about how it all takes place. Regardless of the details though, an entity either acts as a reaction or volitionally. All reactions necessitate prior action. Therefore there must be volitional action as the starting point. Nothing you or any physicist discovers can or ever will negate the fact that no entity can act against its nature.

Out of curiosity though, what is meant by "energy" in this theory and where did this energy come from? Is it even possible for their to be energy apart from any entity?

YOUR theory, however, induces - it says, "How can we insert God as the cause?" God is not a demonstrable component of everything - so including him in the 'pre-everything' scenarios is not justified. You keep Matter and Energy - but you INJECT God at the beginning to take it one step further - as if the existence of some magical fantastic being who isn't bound to the laws of existence solves anything in any rational capacity.

Hahaha. wow. I don't remember ever even THINKING "How can we insert God as the cause?", let alone typing it!! I have only submitted that there must be a volitional being with the capacity to begin action. I have in no way suggested magic, fantasy, or that God is not bound by the laws of existence. You are projecting quite a bit of your "God-baggage" onto my position and I really don't appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha. wow. I don't remember ever even THINKING "How can we insert God as the cause?", let alone typing it!! I have only submitted that there must be a volitional being with the capacity to begin action. I have in no way suggested magic, fantasy, or that God is not bound by the laws of existence. You are projecting quite a bit of your "God-baggage" onto my position and I really don't appreciate it.

Can you even state your metaphysical position?

Can you even state, what, if any, are your philosophical axioms, or their corollaries?

You haven't demonstrated your ability to validate relatively simple concepts, - rather than validate, you insist on the negation of having your invalid concept invalidated. The onus of proof lay on he who asserts the positive. If you don't appreciate that. Tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dozens huh? It seemed pretty straight forward to me. The other options are:

1)Posit that an entity at some point acted against its nature - Deny LOI

2)Posit the possibility of an "infinite regress" (non-existent series) - Deny LOI

3)Posit that action is an illusion- Deny Perceptual Self-evident fact

Unless you know of a fourth option?

Axiom: Existence exists.

If you are not sufficiently convinced that I have "necessitated" the existence of God, then it is sufficient to say so and to spell out your reasoning against mine.

I have, several times, but if you insist on going through it again, then Jacob - rather than wade back through the last 200 posts trying to find where you definitively spelled out your exact reasoning for the existence of God - why don't you restate it?

But this time, take some time to really spell it out clearly in a logical format. Present your givens, your statements, and your conclusions. Keep the unnecessary fluff. You do not need to keep repeating how John Galt presented Identity, nor that it was him that did it. Keep it to the absolute essentials.

We will then address each point in an orderly fashion and when we MUTUALLY agree on the validity or invalidity of a given point we will put that point to rest. I suggest labeling your Givens as G1, G2, etc., statements as S1, S2, etc. and we'll see if we can agree that all of the givens are valid, all of the statements are 1) supported by the givens and 2) logical, and if so, then we'll agree that the conclusion © is correct.

The "arbitrary" unicorn bull crap is getting old. You know that I am not attempting to slip in some ridiculous idea like "unicorns"..so stop pretending that I am. You should know very well by now that I am putting forth an ARGUMENT for the existence of God-- not some random arbitrary assertion that is not based in reality.

I know so such thing. You have not presented a concept that is any different from unicorns - you have presented an arbitrary concept. Yes, you have tried to justify it but as far as I'm concerned, you have failed to do so. Thus my offer to ONCE AGAIN go through the entire argument, this time in complete detail.

Ya...I could be knocked unconscious and still exist. What exactly is your point here?? It seems that you are trying to suggest a primacy of consciousness position...which I know you wouldn't do...so I'm confused.

If you were unconscious, your unconsciousness would still exist. It would simply be still.

Think about what it means to have no consciousness. If your consciousness were gone - completely - destroyed - no longer functioning and lacking any potential to function ever again - would you still exist?

again...these accusations are getting old. You know that I agree with you about the issue of arbitrary assertions so please stop pretending that I don't.

I think you agree with me conceptually but you have not fully incorporated this agreement into all concepts, which is why you continue, I think, to cling to an arbitrary concept.

By "on its own" here, do you mean volitionally? I think not. Either an entity acts volitionally or as a reaction.... more below.

No I'm not suggesting that non corporeal energy has consciousness.

Again, please see my argument. None of this (even if it is true) says ANYTHING about my argument. This (and the rest of physics) is just details about how it all takes place. Regardless of the details though, an entity either acts as a reaction or volitionally. All reactions necessitate prior action. Therefore there must be volitional action as the starting point. Nothing you or any physicist discovers can or ever will negate the fact that no entity can act against its nature.

All reactions necessitate prior action...

Gravity. Place two masses in a vacuum light years apart from any other masses. Place them at a distance from each other. the two bodies will begin to move towards each other.

Is it a reaction? Yes - they react to each other.

Is there prior action? Hmmmm.

Out of curiosity though, what is meant by "energy" in this theory and where did this energy come from? Is it even possible for their to be energy apart from any entity?

Objection: The concept of "entity" is not limited to the realm of the material. Energy is an entity.

That said, we know energy takes a multitude of forms. Thermal, kinetic, potential, electrical, magnetic, and so forth. We do not know if we have identified all forms of energy.

We have reason to believe that E=Mc2 - Einstein certainly seems to have gotten that right at least within the general context of Human existence.

Hahaha. wow. I don't remember ever even THINKING "How can we insert God as the cause?", let alone typing it!! I have only submitted that there must be a volitional being with the capacity to begin action. I have in no way suggested magic, fantasy, or that God is not bound by the laws of existence. You are projecting quite a bit of your "God-baggage" onto my position and I really don't appreciate it.

I didn't say it was a conscious action on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rational view of reality dictates that since you are a self declared automaton there is no reason for me to continue discussions with you.

I did not declare I am an automaton, I just declared that this is the viewpoint of rationality.

Are you able to rationally demonstrate that you are not an automaton?

That is the question.

I am persuaded that to declare we are not automatons we need to appeal something outside rationality.

If you don’t like to continue discussions with me, no problem. But please don’t ascribe your choice to something I never said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not declare I am an automaton, I just declared that this is the viewpoint of rationality.

Since the alternative, by your reasoning, is an irrational viewpoint, I must reject it and accept the rational viewpoint, which declares that you are an automaton.

Are you able to rationally demonstrate that you are not an automaton?

I suggest you read the links already provided on determinism.

I am persuaded that to declare we are not automatons we need to appeal something outside rationality.

Ok then you are either:

a ) a self-declared automaton; or

b ) a self-declared irrational

Those are your options. Those are the only options you've left yourself - automaton or irrational.

Regardless, of which is correct, since I am not irrational, continued conversation with you is pointless, isn't it?

If you don’t like to continue discussions with me, no problem. But please don’t ascribe your choice to something I never said.

What choice? I don't have a choice, so no choice can be ascribed to you.

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greebo: "energy is an entity".....

I realize that there is a majority position in physics on this but Im not convinced. I consider this controversial. What was the inductive validation you went through to accept this position?

Philosophically or scientifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the alternative, by your reasoning, is an irrational viewpoint, I must reject it and accept the rational viewpoint, which declares that you are an automaton.

May you suppose that there are not only two alternatives?

That is, there are thoughts that is not possible to classify rational or irrational, because they come before any rationality and are in any case not irrational.

One of them is: “I am”.

I’m sure that if you just taste what I’m trying to say you will agree.

I suggest you read the links already provided on determinism.

I didn’t find any answer to the free will question. Would you explain to me how free will is demonstrated?

Ok then you are either:

a ) a self-declared automaton; or

b ) a self-declared irrational

Those are your options. Those are the only options you've left yourself - automaton or irrational.

Regardless, of which is correct, since I am not irrational, continued conversation with you is pointless, isn't it?

What choice? I don't have a choice, so no choice can be ascribed to you.

You make that conclusion, not me.

I’m feeling free. And because rationality denies my liberty, then to confirm to myself that I have choices, I have to watch beyond the rationality.

Do you have a different alternative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May you suppose that there are not only two alternatives?

Something is either rational, or it is not rational.

What other alternative exists? Demonstrate something that is both rational and non-rational.

That is, there are thoughts that is not possible to classify rational or irrational, because they come before any rationality and are in any case not irrational.

What constitutes a thought such that it is able to be neither A nor NOT A simultaneously?

One of them is: “I am”.

You believe that "I AM" is neither rational nor irrational?

On what basis do you believe "I AM"?

I’m sure that if you just taste what I’m trying to say you will agree.

You could not be more mistaken, primarily in assuming that I have never thought as you think now. I was a real mush-head in my 20's.

I didn’t find any answer to the free will question. Would you explain to me how free will is demonstrated?

There is no answer beyond the self-evident. If you believe you have a choice, you have a choice. If you do not believe you have a choice, you have no choice but to not believe it.

You make that conclusion, not me.

I gave you the only two possible rational alternatives. If a third exists - prove it.

I’m feeling free. And because rationality denies my liberty, then to confirm to myself that I have choices, I have to watch beyond the rationality.

Do you have a different alternative?

No, you're pretty clearly demonstrating your lack of either ability or willingness to think rationally here.

I have only one piece of advice to give you.

If you ever identify a contradiction, either your logic or your premises are incorrect. Always check your premises.

Edited by Greebo
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...