Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A) I THINK you mean "analytic" instead of "synthetic"..??

B ) Why can it not be used to prove anything about the real world? Is it true? True about the real world? Then why on earth can it not be used in a proof about the real world?

Yes, sorry, I meant analytic. An analytic truth just follows from symbolic manipulation of whatever definitions you start with. It doesn't seem like the proper way to think to me, which is to look at the world and ponder it. That's all I was saying.

No. Almost everything in the universe is both cause and effect (in different respects). This is why we moved the conversation to motion. Cause and effect refer to motion/interaction between entities. If anything exists in a state which is not an effect (not a result of prior causation), then that thing is eternal. I am arguing that such a thing must exist and that it must be volitional in order to have caused anything else.

Ok. Well cause and effect as motion/interaction between entities is certainly the mainstream definition. But in Objectivism, "cause" is just another name for "entity" and effect is just another name for "action" (they are the same referents seen from a slightly different perspective).

We model cause and effect as between an entity and it's actions, not in-between entities. Even when one object bangs in to another, the actions of the object being hit are determined by its identity. Peikoff pointed out that a billiard ball hit by another billiard ball has a different action to an egg hit by one.

So to get back on to your argument, with this metaphysics your statement "every effect has a cause" boils down to "every action has an entity," which we agree with, but the chain of cause and effect can stop there, there is no logical requirement for it to traverse back between entities back to a prime mover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, sorry, I meant analytic. An analytic truth just follows from symbolic manipulation of whatever definitions you start with. It doesn't seem like the proper way to think to me, which is to look at the world and ponder it. That's all I was saying.

I think you've got some faulty epistemological assumptions here (one's that you probably don't impose anywhere else in your thinking). Analytic truth is a result of "pondering" the world-- and it is unavoidable in all knowledge. To fault someone for it, you are ultimately faulting them for using logic; for assuming that A is A.

Ok. Well cause and effect as motion/interaction between entities is certainly the mainstream definition. But in Objectivism, "cause" is just another name for "entity" and effect is just another name for "action" (they are the same referents seen from a slightly different perspective).

We model cause and effect as between an entity and it's actions, not in-between entities. Even when one object bangs in to another, the actions of the object being hit are determined by its identity. Peikoff pointed out that a billiard ball hit by another billiard ball has a different action to an egg hit by one.

I agree with Peikoff. I am pointing out that a billiard which does not get hit will not move.

Rand & Peikoff get props for emphasizing the role of an object's identity in the way it acts, but the identity of an object alone is not sufficient to make it act. Left alone, the billiard ball (with it's identity) will remain forever stationary.

So to get back on to your argument, with this metaphysics your statement "every effect has a cause" boils down to "every action has an entity," which we agree with, but the chain of cause and effect can stop there, there is no logical requirement for it to traverse back between entities back to a prime mover.

No, it can't. If we thought like this about any other issue, there would be absolutely no Science! lol.

"Why did sparks fly when those pieces of metal touched each other like that?"

"Because that's their identity. Stop asking questions!"

No Objectivist talks like this in regard to questions which interest him-- which shows the intellectual dishonesty in talking like this in regard to this issue.

Perhaps it would be helpful to review Aristotle's levels of causation and to understand that almost everything in the universe has a multiplicity of causes (in different respects).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've got some faulty epistemological assumptions here (one's that you probably don't impose anywhere else in your thinking). Analytic truth is a result of "pondering" the world-- and it is unavoidable in all knowledge. To fault someone for it, you are ultimately faulting them for using logic; for assuming that A is A.

From what I read, you started your argument with "Every effect must have a Cause," which you took to be true by definition, and then went from there. I am objecting to starting an argument that way, instead of starting with observation. If instead you had said "Whenever I have seen an effect there has also been a cause," that would be fine. I think this is a valid objection.

I agree with Peikoff. I am pointing out that a billiard which does not get hit will not move.

Rand & Peikoff get props for emphasizing the role of an object's identity in the way it acts, but the identity of an object alone is not sufficient to make it act. Left alone, the billiard ball (with it's identity) will remain forever stationary.

But we only know that because of what we know about the identity of billiard balls - what they are and are not capable of. You seem to be making this claim about every object in the universe. I don't know how you can do that without first cataloging them all.

Without a catalog how do you eliminate the possibility that there are objects that have the identity of being prime movers, that are the cause of their own actions? That are eternal and have always just moved around the universe initiating action? Or are these objects what you would call Gods?

No, it can't. If we thought like this about any other issue, there would be absolutely no Science! lol.

"Why did sparks fly when those pieces of metal touched each other like that?"

"Because that's their identity. Stop asking questions!"

More like: "Because that's their identity. Now we must learn specifically what about their identities is causing this."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read, you started your argument with "Every effect must have a Cause," which you took to be true by definition, and then went from there. I am objecting to starting an argument that way, instead of starting with observation. If instead you had said "Whenever I have seen an effect there has also been a cause," that would be fine. I think this is a valid objection.

It's true that I started the argument with a definition. But is the definition true? If it is, then it is based in reality. If the definition is flawed, then that is the problem. But there is no problem in starting with a definition like that as long as the definition is accurate.

But we only know that because of what we know about the identity of billiard balls - what they are and are not capable of. You seem to be making this claim about every object in the universe. I don't know how you can do that without first cataloging them all.

I am making a claim that there are two categories for action: reaction & volition. If an object is reactionary by nature ("identity) then it only acts as a reaction to something else. If an object is volitional by nature ("identity") then it can act "of its own accord" rather than as a reaction.

I place the billiard ball, and rocks, and molecules, and atoms, and every non-volitional thing in the first category-- all of these act as a reaction to prior action. They must since they are not volitional. Their IDENTITY/ NATURE is such that they require the causal influence of outside action in order to act themselves.

Without a catalog how do you eliminate the possibility that there are objects that have the identity of being prime movers, that are the cause of their own actions?

I'm not sure if I fully understand your question here, but I would like to say something concerning the "catalog" supposition. It seems that you are leaning heavily toward empiricism (something is only true if it can be observed and tested by your senses). Notice that you cannot catalog all existents as having identity, but you know that all existents have identity. You cannot catalog all instances of "2a+2a=4a", but you know that it is universally true.

There are certain things that you can know without having to study them empirically (or "catalog" them).

That are eternal and have always just moved around the universe initiating action? Or are these objects what you would call Gods?

If a thing is eternal and moves entirely of its own accord (not as a reaction to anything), then it is an eternal volitional being, so yes, it would be a "God".

More like: "Because that's their identity. Now we must learn specifically what about their identities is causing this."

Yes, but you will not find the causation if you ONLY examine the identity of ONE of the objects involved. The causation does not come from the single identity of one object alone, but rather from the nature of the interaction between the identieS of all things involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the argument as to whether or not a god exists begins on an irrational premise. There are no observations that provide a hypothetical model of a god, let alone a theoretical body of knowledge. Even a wild surmise is beyond the grasp of a reasonable attempt to rationalize the existence of a god. The question of “does a god exist?” is, at best, only an academic exercise in logic.

Gravity can be considered the primary force in nature, as it is inherent to matter in all contingencies of matter/energy interactions. Even the photon, a particle with pretty much a zero mass, can be deflected by gravity – indicating the photon has an “infinitely” small mass component.

If one positions the original singularity as the basis for our universe, then one has to conclude that this theoretical singularity consisted of a super dense body of the particle that forms the basis for all matter and energy in the universe (sometimes referred to as “The God Particle”). This fundamental particle has no “life span,” other than it interacts and forms other particles and structures. All its resulting states of matter could be theoretically reduced back to this fundamental state. What kept this super dense mass together was a gravitational field that, in comparison, would make the density of a large black hole equivalent to a hydrogen filled balloon. The density of this gravitational field maintained everything that had / has the potential to exist in this universe. Then it expanded. Somehow that gravitational field distorted, and the enormous energy of creation began. It is possible that some super dense black hole, through an enormous acceleration due to super dense gravitational fields, struck the singularity at a good percent of light velocity. The resulting collision created a distortion of the singularity gravitational field – thus begins The Universe.

A god has no place in this universe, and no rational argument can justify the existence of such an entity. The existence of a god would invalidate virtually everything we know about the nature of nature.

The existence of a god also requires the question of; “where did this super complex, all knowing, omnipotent thing come from in the first place?” Why do so many people have such a difficult time extending what we actually know about this universe, to the conclusion that every structure and particle has an identifiable, inherent property? Yet, many people can dismiss the available evidence, and will accept an utterly absurd conclusion that some complex god thing, which has infinite existence, created this universe.

People believe in a god because they want to. They see their finite lives, and want more – even though, it seems, a good percent of them don’t even know what to do with the time they actually have.

Edited by LCEntity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the argument as to whether or not a god exists begins on an irrational premise. There are no observations that provide a hypothetical model of a god, let alone a theoretical body of knowledge. Even a wild surmise is beyond the grasp of a reasonable attempt to rationalize the existence of a god. The question of “does a god exist?” is, at best, only an academic exercise in logic.

Theres quite a bit of epistemological assumptions loaded into all of this, but I'd rather get to the meat of the issue below.

Suffice it to say, I am obviously not here saying:

"Hey guys, wouldn't it be neato if God existed!", so please refrain from the annoying anti-intellectual accusations.

I know many Theists are guilty of it, but I'd appreciate a fair evaluation of MY argument- not theirs.

People believe in a god because they want to. They see their finite lives, and want more – even though, it seems, a good percent of them don’t even know what to do with the time they actually have.

And I could just as easily say that people run away from the knowledge that there is a God because they are deathly afraid of the implications (some of the fear being warranted, some coming from severe mis-understandings/ false assumptions).

We can accuse each other of basing our beliefs on Subjectivism until we're blue in the face. I'd rather skip that and prove it out. :)

Gravity can be considered the primary force in nature, as it is inherent to matter in all contingencies of matter/energy interactions. Even the photon, a particle with pretty much a zero mass, can be deflected by gravity – indicating the photon has an “infinitely” small mass component.

If one positions the original singularity as the basis for our universe, then one has to conclude that this theoretical singularity consisted of a super dense body of the particle that forms the basis for all matter and energy in the universe (sometimes referred to as “The God Particle”). This fundamental particle has no “life span,” other than it interacts and forms other particles and structures. All its resulting states of matter could be theoretically reduced back to this fundamental state. What kept this super dense mass together was a gravitational field that, in comparison, would make the density of a large black hole equivalent to a hydrogen filled balloon. The density of this gravitational field maintained everything that had / has the potential to exist in this universe. Then it expanded. Somehow that gravitational field distorted, and the enormous energy of creation began. It is possible that some super dense black hole, through an enormous acceleration due to super dense gravitational fields, struck the singularity at a good percent of light velocity. The resulting collision created a distortion of the singularity gravitational field – thus begins The Universe.

My goodness. You have described much more about God (in your "God Particle") than I have had the opportunity to get around to in this thread! It's true that there must be something (whether God or "God Particle") which is the source of all other things that ever existed or could exist, which has no "life span", etc...

Let us assume, momentarily, that it is a Particle (an non-personal, non-intelligent, non-volitional thing).

When this particle acted resulting in the creation of other things, did it do so accidentally or on purpose? In other words, if it is the source of all other things and all other motion, then its action could not have been a result of something outside of it acting upon it (nothing else existed to act upon it). Its action also could not have come from some "smaller" particle within it, for then we run into the same problem with this "smaller" particle. What caused it to act?

The action must have come from its own nature as a whole-- meaning its nature must be such that it can act of its own accord-- meaning that it must be volitional-- meaning that it's not just a particle, its a "person" in the sense that it has consciousness and values (which are necessary prerequisites for volition).

A god has no place in this universe, and no rational argument can justify the existence of such an entity.

Again, that would be the point of this thread. Let us find out.

The existence of a god would invalidate virtually everything we know about the nature of nature.

No. A is A. There are no contradiction. If one understands that there is a God, this idea must simply be integrated without contradiction into the rest of ones knowledge... just like with anything else.

The existence of a god also requires the question of; “where did this super complex, all knowing, omnipotent thing come from in the first place?”

Haha! You have no problem understanding the stupidity of asking this question about your God Particle, but then you fail to understand the silliness in asking it about God.

We are both agreed that there must be some super complex thing which is the source of all things and which, itself, is eternal and thus has no answer to "where did it come from?".

You say its a God Particle. I say its God.

Why do so many people have such a difficult time extending what we actually know about this universe, to the conclusion that every structure and particle has an identifiable, inherent property? Yet, many people can dismiss the available evidence, and will accept an utterly absurd conclusion that some complex god thing, which has infinite existence, created this universe.

Again, I am obviously not on here arguing for a dismissal of any rational evidence in favor of faith or for an irrational acceptance of an "absurd conclusion".

So I would really appreciate it if you'd drop the straw man, ad hominem stuff. Its been done a million times on this thread and it is VERY old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will have to excuse me for assuming this forum represents a scientific and rational approach to philosophical issues. What is your basis for any debate, other than attacking things like "god particle" (don't you understand the context?). I'll use the term "fundamental particle." Does that help remove the religious context?

What is the basis for your belief in??? Where is the straw man? Why not cut the linguistics nonsense and buzz word clutter, and state SOME objective basis for the existence of a (your) god.

One thing for sure; the rapid and recent expansion in human population has generated complex mutations within complex systems (like the human brain) with little differential reproduction resulting in objective selection. This has resulted in a human gene pool with an overt bias towards irrational brain functioning within human populations,due to random mutation of DNA molecular transition.

NEWS FLASH! Researchers recently concluded that brain size is undergoing reduction within the human population. Early Homo sapiens populations (as Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon) had generally larger brains, and a bigger cerebral cortex.

Edited by LCEntity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will have to excuse me for assuming this forum represents a scientific and rational approach to philosophical issues.

It certainly does, however the individual you are talking to is not an Objectivist, and has been going in circles debating others for the last 40 pages. Do not take the content of his posts as indicative of the content you should expect from others.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly does, however the individual you are talking to is not an Objectivist, and has been going in circles debating others for the last 40 pages. Do not take the content of his posts as indicative of the content you should expect from others.

Egophile

I agree, thanks for your comment -- provides some perspective. I should have referred to the individual within this thread. I see most of the participants within this forum reside in a different (“rational”) gene pool. :thumbsup:

I just started in this forum, and was wondering what this individual was doing here – seems far from an Objectivist’s view of the universe (and our more local environment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes- I apologize for the delay, and I appreciate you bringing this issue up.

I will ask you to recall what the essential problem is with the "Primacy of Consciousness" position- its problem is that it asserts a consciousness apart from existence, a consciousness which is not conscious of anything but its own consciousness... and this is a contradiction because consciousness by definition means conscious of something which exists.

That is why the primacy of consciousness is flawed.

My proposal of an existent which is also conscious does not commit this flaw in any way more than man being conscious is a flaw. The only reason it seems to be bothersome is because the existent I am proposing is the "primary existent" which is conscious. But, notice, this does not say that it is a consciousness which is conscious of nothing but its own consciousness. It is an existent, which is conscious of its own existence-- which is no more flawed than the idea that I am conscious of my own existence.

However, perceivable consciousness (which humans possess and is available to knowledge through introspection), which would also have volition is still necessitated by prior actions, even if in its action it is self-directed; if you cannot trace your thoughts precisely, your whole consciousness (existing) can still be traced back to your having an existent, a brain...or if that is not enough, then whichever prior status makes you more "material" and not possessing a consciousness (fetus cells, sperm/ovum cells, minerals [i don't know exactly what is necessitated for the formation of sperm/ovum cells in the framework of the human anatomy]).

My purpose for this enumeration is in this sense two-fold, firstly something caused the existence of your consciousness (which by means shown above can be traced to Existence as such, as Ayn Rand defined it), and secondly the context necessary for your a consciousness to exist in the first place is solely human; the human element is necessary for you to have it, to sense it through introspection and to conceptualize it and abstract from it so on and so forth. This context cannot be dropped, as every way that you can perceive/conceptualize is necessarily linked to it being within the entities "humans", and apply it to something rationalized off of it (and as such, as most others here, I still say you are rationalizing your concept, because the only thing you can *point* at is consciousness, however a HUMAN one).

As for the primacy of consciousness issue, the way you presented your "primary existent" is still one of condoning it; unless, as per my example above, that (the existence) of consciousness is necessitated by a prior existent, you require firstly that your "primary existent" be, and afterward develop a consciousness (through the same and only method you can say that about the only form of consciousness available to your perception). However, as I have read you through these pages, the only way it would indeed by a PRIME mover, if it were a consciousness only (which would be context-dropping and an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness). Even so, since you stated that your "primary existent" is and after is conscious of, then it is something physical (for lack of a better term, but in the sense Grames used it in the other thread), because as I've shown above, you cannot divorce (even a self-directed and non-deterministic) consciousness from a physical precursor.

Essentially, this is the whole issue of the primacies, not just as you put it, but also as Ayn Rand said, "existence [as] the subject of [...] consciousness", i.e. creating existence. From this point, if you go a) and say outright that the prime mover is only a consciousness, then it is a total assumption of the primacy of consciousness. However, if you go b ), as you stated, and require the prime mover to be (an existent) and then be aware, then if you let go if the primacy of consciousness, you'd be going around in circles with what created it (the existent) in the first place, since existents possessing consciousness have a physical necessity beforehand (i.e., in order for you to be aware, it was necessitated that some physical interactions take place beforehand, be it your birth, your conception, minerals transforming themselves into sperm/ovums etc.)

"But, notice, this does not say that it is a consciousness which is conscious of nothing but its own consciousness. It is an existent, which is conscious of its own existence-- which is no more flawed than the idea that I am conscious of my own existence."

Yes, it is flawed, for the reason that before you were conscious of your existence, you were conscious of something else. What is your prime mover have to be conscious of, in this case, other than himself if he precedes (creates, brings into existences etc.) the rest of existents (of which he is a cause of)? You were right about the first statement being flawed. The second one is also flawed, because your analogy is not complete, and since as the "prime" mover, that "brings everything else into existence", it has nothing else to be conscious of, prior:

a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.
Edited by Xall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will have to excuse me for assuming this forum represents a scientific and rational approach to philosophical issues.

What is your basis for any debate, other than attacking things like "god particle" (don't you understand the context?). I'll use the term "fundamental particle." Does that help remove the religious context?

What is the basis for your belief in??? Where is the straw man? Why not cut the linguistics nonsense and buzz word clutter, and state SOME objective basis for the existence of a (your) god.

One thing for sure; the rapid and recent expansion in human population has generated complex mutations within complex systems (like the human brain) with little differential reproduction resulting in objective selection. This has resulted in a human gene pool with an overt bias towards irrational brain functioning within human populations,due to random mutation of DNA molecular transition.

NEWS FLASH! Researchers recently concluded that brain size is undergoing reduction within the human population. Early Homo sapiens populations (as Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon) had generally larger brains, and a bigger cerebral cortex.

So... did you have a response to my argument, or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... did you have a response to my argument, or not?

You state no premise, so there is no basis for an objective discussion. State your basis for belief, surmise -- or whatever. I simply stated that based on the laws of physics, no god is required. You fail to consider that the properties of matter have an inherent nature, and nothing is required to make matter come into existence. I'm not sure what your point is. You simply focus on words and not concepts.

Edited by LCEntity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am making a claim that there are two categories for action: reaction & volition. If an object is reactionary by nature ("identity) then it only acts as a reaction to something else. If an object is volitional by nature ("identity") then it can act "of its own accord" rather than as a reaction.

I place the billiard ball, and rocks, and molecules, and atoms, and every non-volitional thing in the first category-- all of these act as a reaction to prior action. They must since they are not volitional. Their IDENTITY/ NATURE is such that they require the causal influence of outside action in order to act themselves.

Ok. I would say there's 3 categories. Inanimate objects such as rocks which can not initiate any action on their own. Animate entities such as animals that can initiate their own movement but not their own thought, and volitional entities such as man which can initiate their own thought and action.

I'm not sure if I fully understand your question here, but I would like to say something concerning the "catalog" supposition.

What I'm saying is I don't see why their couldn't be big dumb non-volitional (but animate) space animals that just move around bumping in to things, such as inanimate objects. Certainly, based on our experiences on Earth, extrapolating animals out there would be less of a leap than a supernatural explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. I would say there's 3 categories. Inanimate objects such as rocks which can not initiate any action on their own. Animate entities such as animals that can initiate their own movement but not their own thought, and volitional entities such as man which can initiate their own thought and action.

What I'm saying is I don't see why their couldn't be big dumb non-volitional (but animate) space animals that just move around bumping in to things, such as inanimate objects. Certainly, based on our experiences on Earth, extrapolating animals out there would be less of a leap than a supernatural explanation.

So, you are willing to posit an eternal cosmic animal, but not an eternal cosmic person (by person, I mean an existent with consciousness, values & volition)?

While I can't claim to be an expert on animals, it seems that animals only initiate their own movement based on instinct- an automatic reaction to various stimuli. It seems that IF there were a cosmic eternal animal, it would still be dependent on external stimuli (action) in order for it to act...or it would be dependent on something prior to it from which it received its instincts, etc..

However, the realization that there must be SOME animate eternal cosmic thing which began all action is rock solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You state no premise, so there is no basis for an objective discussion. State your basis for belief, surmise -- or whatever. I simply stated that based on the laws of physics, no god is required. You fail to consider that the properties of matter have an inherent nature, and nothing is required to make matter come into existence. I'm not sure what your point is. You simply focus on words and not concepts.

A) This isn't an issue of matter "coming into existence". Please READ my argument before commenting on it.

B) My premises & basis for an objective discussion are listed throughout. Again, please READ before commenting.

From my above post to you:

"Let us assume, momentarily, that it is a Particle (an non-personal, non-intelligent, non-volitional thing).

When this particle acted resulting in the creation of other things, did it do so accidentally or on purpose? In other words, if it is the source of all other things and all other motion, then its action could not have been a result of something outside of it acting upon it (nothing else existed to act upon it). Its action also could not have come from some "smaller" particle within it, for then we run into the same problem with this "smaller" particle. What caused it to act?

The action must have come from its own nature as a whole-- meaning its nature must be such that it can act of its own accord-- meaning that it must be volitional-- meaning that it's not just a particle, its a "person" in the sense that it has consciousness and values (which are necessary prerequisites for volition). "

From many previous posts:

There are two types of action: Reactionary and Volitional.

Every reactionary action requires prior action (either reactionary or volitional).

There is reactionary action in the universe.

An infinite regress of reactionary action is illogical & impossible.

There must have been a beginning to reactionary action.

That action must have been volitional.

There must be a first, eternal, volitional being who began all reactionary action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work at a nuclear power station (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station) in Arizona and have little time for sophomoric debates. My work consists of analyzing problem reports, and then generating formal corrective actions. So, if I seem a bit short and to the point, you might understand that I have an intimate relationship with nuclear physics – on a practical level.

Before continuing with this odd thread, why don’t you reveal the assumed nature of this originating “ultimate reality” belief which you posses? What you are presently doing, is playing an intellectual parlor game. You assume a given – a god, then ask to have this given proven as false. You want to play poker, but never want to show your own hand -- yet you insist everyone at the table show theirs. Knowledge proceeds from the observation of phenomenon. A hypothesis is formed and initial testing is performed. A theoretical structure develops from refined testing and refined observation, or the hypothesis is debunked by testing, or more refined observation.

If a formal theory develops, further testing and observation refines the theory. Eventually, the theoretical body of knowledge can be used to predict the outcome of combined actions. For example; scientists and engineers can predict that the application of mature theoretical knowledge will result in a spacecraft leaving Earth, arriving at the planet Mars within a precise time / distance tolerance and will then deliver 2 Mars rovers to the Martian surface. These rovers will operate for a given period of time – sending back Martian environmental data. We treat these underlying theories as factual, because we must commit ourselves to action in order to survive. Yet the theoretical knowledge is not considered as “absolute knowledge,” regardless of our success in using it. Knowledge always needs to be “open ended,” to allow for advancement in that knowledge. We know there are absolutes, but we cannot treat knowledge as absolute.

Regarding you originating “god:”

What are its properties?

What is its mass?

What is its density?

Does it use energy?

Is it composed of subatomic particles?

How fast does it travel?

Where is it located?

How old is it?

How does it maintain its structure – does it even have a structure?

What was it doing before it created the universe?

Is it expanding in all directions relative to other objects in the universe?

If the universe expands forever, what might it do about this entropic doom?

Does this god have a purpose?

Where does evolution fit in?

Rattling along about cause and effect has little meaning without the originating cause. Ayn Rand considered philosophy as a practical intellectual / behavioral tool of survival. She had little use for “floating abstractions,” divorced from reality. The belief in a god, or not, establishes one’s relationship with reality. This doesn’t mean that all atheists are rationalists, or committed to reason. Many atheists simply place The State, or some other collectivist non-entity as a substitute for a god. But, whether or not one believes in a god forms the fundamental basis in determining one’s relationship with reality.

So, if this thread has any productive meaning, you might consider dropping the sempiternal blather, and simply state your belief on the origin of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you are willing to posit an eternal cosmic animal, but not an eternal cosmic person (by person, I mean an existent with consciousness, values & volition)?

Occam's razor? It's the ability to initiate movement that is required, not thought.

While I can't claim to be an expert on animals, it seems that animals only initiate their own movement based on instinct- an automatic reaction to various stimuli. It seems that IF there were a cosmic eternal animal, it would still be dependent on external stimuli (action) in order for it to act...or it would be dependent on something prior to it from which it received its instincts, etc..

I'm no expert either, but they do definitely seem like a third category.

However, the realization that there must be SOME animate eternal cosmic thing which began all action is rock solid.

I don't buy the whole setup, I'm just saying that even on your premises your theory only supports the existence of e.g. a space whale, not a God as we usually think of Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yes! Let's talk about that. haha. I agree that if we are referring to the universe as "the totality of all that exists" than there is nothing outside of it which could cause it. But WITHIN that category ("within the universe" or "within existence") there must exist a cause which is not also an effect..IF the Law of Cause and Effect is valid. Agree? Disagree???"

This is at the heart of your attempt to clarify your thinking. This first cause idea, within the universe, is claiming the creation of energy. Cause and effect, relationships of motion, etc, are all concepts branching into a more broad idea such as energy. A pool ball hitting another ball causing it to move, is the description of energy transference. Just like the universe is eternal, energy must be eternal as well. To have a first cause would mean the creation of energy, out of what was previously no energy (even though you say matter has always existed).

The one good thing that has come out of modern physics is probably the notion that energy and matter are inseparable, even going further to point out that matter can be turned into energy. Coupled with the agreement that existence has always existed, and modern physics' notion of the equality between energy and matter, I think of the universe as always existing, eternal in the sense that time cannot describe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work at a nuclear power station (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station) in Arizona and have little time for sophomoric debates. My work consists of analyzing problem reports, and then generating formal corrective actions.

Really? I work at a local fast food restaurant (Fanci Freez) in Idaho. My work consists of preparing food and ice cream for our customers.

So, if I seem a bit short and to the point, you might understand that I have an intimate relationship with nuclear physics – on a practical level.

I don't see the connection between your intimate understanding of nuclear physics (which I'm sure is genuine and great) and your shortness with this thread.

But for someone with so little time and patience, you sure do spend a lot of time beating around the bush and addressing peripheral issues (like your professional expertise in physics) rather than the crux of the argument.

I believe you've posted 4-5 times so far and yet have not once addressed my argument.

You've listed objections to straw men.

You've insulted my personal intelligence.

You've waxed eloquently about your personal expertise.

You've assigned to me motives and positions which I clearly do not hold.

But, you have not addressed my argument.

When discussing philosophy, I really prefer to interact with honest people who also wish to honestly discuss the issue at hand- rather than a million distracting peripheral issues which have no bearing on the subject at hand... So, YOU can understand if I am a little short on patience as well. :)

Before continuing with this odd thread, why don’t you reveal the assumed nature of this originating “ultimate reality” belief which you posses? What you are presently doing, is playing an intellectual parlor game. You assume a given – a god, then ask to have this given proven as false.

Where have I "assumed that God is a given" and then "asked to have it proven false"?

I have done just the opposite:

I have assumed the basic rational premises of Objectivism (the law of Identity, etc..) and have provided an argument (with REASONS) for the existence of God.

You seem to be the one playing games by dancing all around the issue of my argument.

I'm not here to dance or to play games. I'm here to reason. If you are here for the same, then please address my argument.

Regarding you originating “god:”

What are its properties?

What is its mass?

What is its density?

Does it use energy?

Is it composed of subatomic particles?

How fast does it travel?

Where is it located?

How old is it?

How does it maintain its structure – does it even have a structure?

What was it doing before it created the universe?

Is it expanding in all directions relative to other objects in the universe?

If the universe expands forever, what might it do about this entropic doom?

Does this god have a purpose?

Where does evolution fit in?

The aim of this thread is not to discuss and defend the various attributes of God. Such a discussion would be utterly frivolous with an audience which is not convinced that God exists. Therefore, my aim is to demonstrate convincingly that God exists. From there (and only from there), a conversation about His attributes, etc.. could be had.

You seem to be implying here that if one or more of these questions cannot be answered on demand, that it therefore proves that God does not exist. Remember, that knowledge is not omniscience. One can know that something exists without knowing everything about that existent. The lack of knowledge about any given topic does not negate the knowledge that one can and does have.

Rattling along about cause and effect has little meaning without the originating cause.

My "rattling" along about cause and effect has been an attempt to establish with Objectivists that there IS an originating cause (Most on here seem to be convinced that there is no such origin).

Again, unless it is established that there IS an originating cause, a discussion about the nature of this cause cannot be held.

So, if this thread has any productive meaning, you might consider dropping the sempiternal blather, and simply state your belief on the origin of everything.

I have no idea what you mean by "sempiternal blather", but the insults are getting boring.

"Simply stating my belief on the origin of everything"-- how is this any different from arguing that there is a God and that He is the originating cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy the whole setup, I'm just saying that even on your premises your theory only supports the existence of e.g. a space whale, not a God as we usually think of Him.

Which part of the "setup" do you not "buy", and why? It SEEMS that you agree that there must be SOME eternal animate thing which began all motion, but we disagree thus far on whether this animate thing is a conscious, volitional being or not.

Is this an accurate description of your position?

I ask because I want to actually respond to YOU and your position-- rather than some imagined position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aim of this thread is not to discuss and defend the various attributes of God. Such a discussion would be utterly frivolous with an audience which is not convinced that God exists. Therefore, my aim is to demonstrate convincingly that God exists. From there (and only from there), a conversation about His attributes, etc.. could be had.

You seem to be implying here that if one or more of these questions cannot be answered on demand, that it therefore proves that God does not exist. Remember, that knowledge is not omniscience. One can know that something exists without knowing everything about that existent. The lack of knowledge about any given topic does not negate the knowledge that one can and does have.

To prove that something exists, esp. as an entity, is to demonstrate, via validation, that one or more of these conditions are met.

If it has properties, then it has identity.

Mass is a property, does it have it?

Density is a property, does it have it?

Does it use energy? Many things which exist do just that.

Is it composed of subatomic particles? Again, if something exists, it is usually comprised of such.

How fast does it travel? Again, entities are the cause of motion.

Where is it located? If something exists, it is somewhere.

How old is it? The universe or existence are all that are exempt from time to my understanding.

How does it maintain its structure, if it has one? If something exists, it has structure, again, to my understanding.

What was it doing before it created the universe? The question reverts again to "What is it that has always been?"

If the universe expands forever, what might it do about this entropic doom? How does existence expand, into where that 'did not exist already?'

Does this god have a purpose? This still presumes one exists without demonstrating the same.

Where does evolution fit it? Evolution is the identification of causal connections.

Not all of these questions integrate together to myself, but in general, to posit that something indeed exists, can be demonstrated, not just repeatedly asserted.

To "demonstrate convincingly" is to supply answers to these questions. In short, supplying answers to these questions is validation.

Anything short of the above in this venue is:

Again from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SEMPITERNAL

: of never-ending duration : eternal

Definition of BLATHER

intransitive verb

: to talk foolishly at length —often used with on

and easily construed as evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, perceivable consciousness (which humans possess and is available to knowledge through introspection), which would also have volition is still necessitated by prior actions, even if in its action it is self-directed; if you cannot trace your thoughts precisely, your whole consciousness (existing) can still be traced back to your having an existent, a brain...or if that is not enough, then whichever prior status makes you more "material" and not possessing a consciousness (fetus cells, sperm/ovum cells, minerals [i don't know exactly what is necessitated for the formation of sperm/ovum cells in the framework of the human anatomy]).

My purpose for this enumeration is in this sense two-fold, firstly something caused the existence of your consciousness (which by means shown above can be traced to Existence as such, as Ayn Rand defined it), and secondly the context necessary for your a consciousness to exist in the first place is solely human; the human element is necessary for you to have it, to sense it through introspection and to conceptualize it and abstract from it so on and so forth. This context cannot be dropped, as every way that you can perceive/conceptualize is necessarily linked to it being within the entities "humans", and apply it to something rationalized off of it (and as such, as most others here, I still say you are rationalizing your concept, because the only thing you can *point* at is consciousness, however a HUMAN one).

As for the primacy of consciousness issue, the way you presented your "primary existent" is still one of condoning it; unless, as per my example above, that (the existence) of consciousness is necessitated by a prior existent, you require firstly that your "primary existent" be, and afterward develop a consciousness (through the same and only method you can say that about the only form of consciousness available to your perception). However, as I have read you through these pages, the only way it would indeed by a PRIME mover, if it were a consciousness only (which would be context-dropping and an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness). Even so, since you stated that your "primary existent" is and after is conscious of, then it is something physical (for lack of a better term, but in the sense Grames used it in the other thread), because as I've shown above, you cannot divorce (even a self-directed and non-deterministic) consciousness from a physical precursor.

Essentially, this is the whole issue of the primacies, not just as you put it, but also as Ayn Rand said, "existence [as] the subject of [...] consciousness", i.e. creating existence. From this point, if you go a) and say outright that the prime mover is only a consciousness, then it is a total assumption of the primacy of consciousness. However, if you go b ), as you stated, and require the prime mover to be (an existent) and then be aware, then if you let go if the primacy of consciousness, you'd be going around in circles with what created it (the existent) in the first place, since existents possessing consciousness have a physical necessity beforehand (i.e., in order for you to be aware, it was necessitated that some physical interactions take place beforehand, be it your birth, your conception, minerals transforming themselves into sperm/ovums etc.)

"But, notice, this does not say that it is a consciousness which is conscious of nothing but its own consciousness. It is an existent, which is conscious of its own existence-- which is no more flawed than the idea that I am conscious of my own existence."

Yes, it is flawed, for the reason that before you were conscious of your existence, you were conscious of something else. What is your prime mover have to be conscious of, in this case, other than himself if he precedes (creates, brings into existences etc.) the rest of existents (of which he is a cause of)? You were right about the first statement being flawed. The second one is also flawed, because your analogy is not complete, and since as the "prime" mover, that "brings everything else into existence", it has nothing else to be conscious of, prior:

I had a little trouble following exactly what your point is in the above, but I think I may have gotten the "gist" of it. If in my response, you think that I have misunderstood your argument, please correct me. And I apologize in advance if that is the case.

It seems that you are basically saying "Consciousness is necessarily always preceded by prior action" throughout most of your post. And toward the end, it seems that you are adding that "Consciousness is necessarily conscious of an OTHER existent in addition to the existent which is conscious".

My response is that both of these are empirical assumptions based on our experience of consciousness. There is nothing inherently contradictory about an existent which is conscious only of it's own existence and it's attributes, etc.. And there is no inherent contradiction in an eternally conscious existent (an existent who has always & eternally been conscious).

The fact that we have never experienced such a thing is a moot point. I am not claiming that we have experienced it. I am claiming that such a thing must exist of logical necessity based on the premises of my argument (Law of Identity, Motion, etc..).

I would also like to point out a bit of an "argumentation mistake" (for lack of a better phrase) which you and others seem to be making.

I am arguing for the existence of God based on x y z premises, etc..

This particular objection (and a few others) are not objections against my argument, but rather against a particular aspect of my conclusion.

I bring up this distinction because I do not want to be accused of "rationalism" (i.e. making an arbitrary claim and then daring you to prove that it is illogical). Does this make sense?

I don't mind defending the logical coherence of my conclusion. BUT, the logical coherence of my conclusion is a separate issue from whether or not my conclusion follows from my premises.

So I want to make sure that you and everyone else understands that my replies to you on this issue are meant as defense of my conclusion- not as argument FOR my conclusion.

In other words, the fact that my conclusion is non-contradictory is not the sole reason that I hold to it, and I am not commending that as the sole reason for anyone else to accept it.

But, I am happy to defend my position against the accusation that it is contradictory.

However, those are two separate (though related) issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To prove that something exists, esp. as an entity, is to demonstrate, via validation, that one or more of these conditions are met.

If it has properties, then it has identity.

Mass is a property, does it have it?

Density is a property, does it have it?

Does it use energy? Many things which exist do just that.

Is it composed of subatomic particles? Again, if something exists, it is usually comprised of such.

How fast does it travel? Again, entities are the cause of motion.

Where is it located? If something exists, it is somewhere.

How old is it? The universe or existence are all that are exempt from time to my understanding.

How does it maintain its structure, if it has one? If something exists, it has structure, again, to my understanding.

What was it doing before it created the universe? The question reverts again to "What is it that has always been?"

If the universe expands forever, what might it do about this entropic doom? How does existence expand, into where that 'did not exist already?'

Does this god have a purpose? This still presumes one exists without demonstrating the same.

Where does evolution fit it? Evolution is the identification of causal connections.

Not all of these questions integrate together to myself, but in general, to posit that something indeed exists, can be demonstrated, not just repeatedly asserted.

To "demonstrate convincingly" is to supply answers to these questions. In short, supplying answers to these questions is validation.

Anything short of the above in this venue is:

Again from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SEMPITERNAL

: of never-ending duration : eternal

Definition of BLATHER

intransitive verb

: to talk foolishly at length —often used with on

and easily construed as evasion.

Please revisit the extensive discussion on epistemology earlier in this thread-- OR if you'd like to bring it up again, I'd be happy to begin a new thread on epistemology.

You are assuming a faulty epistemological principle that the ONLY method of verification is through empirical observation and that apart from empirical observation, NO proposition can be known to be true or false with certainty.

*Notice, I emboldened the categorical words above ("only" and "no")- these are the key words which make the assumption false. Replace "only" with "one" and "no" with "some", and I would totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob,

Your position seems to be that God is something which you have logically deduced to exist, but for which you have no empirical evidence. What other things have you deduced to exist, and yet have no evidence for? Is God the only thing? And if so, why?

As far as existents go, I'm not sure if I've thought of any others. If I do, I will inform you.

Did you have a point behind this question, though?

As far as facts which I have deduced apart from empirical evidence, there are a great many, the most important of which is "A is A".

If you wish to use your empiricist escape hatch in order to avoid the weight of this issue, I will ask you to be consistent and to doubt everything which you have not empirically verified.. which would include the assumption that only the empirically verified should be considered factual... and would also incidentally include EVERY thing which is not currently being empirically verified by your senses... since you have not empirically verified that all your previous objects of study have not suddenly changed on you!

If you want to have another epistemology debate, just say so and we'll start the thread.

If not, what is your point in asking such questions?

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...