Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Yes, we require physical bodies to link us to reality outside of our minds. It does not follow that God would require a physical body for the same. After all, if there is a God, He would be the source of everything else in reality and therefore to speak of His needing some sort of "link" to reality would be absurd.

Action requires a physical manifestation. There is no way to alter the momentum of one thing except by transferring momentum from another thing. If there is no momentum, there is no-thing.

So I am back to claiming that God can be no more than a wholly passive observer, which is to say, irrelevant at most.

You still haven't shown WHY the God "concept" is valuable, i.e., what is your motivation for asserting it?

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Action requires a physical manifestation. There is no way to alter the momentum of one thing except by transferring momentum from another thing. If there is no momentum, there is no-thing.

So I am back to claiming that God can be no more than a wholly passive observer, which is to say, irrelevant at most.

If there is a God, He created all physical things and upholds all physical things (including their natures) and therefore would have no problem altering their conditions in any way.

You still haven't shown WHY the God "concept" is valuable, i.e., what is your motivation for asserting it?

- ico

That is why I have emphasized that I would rather not focus so much on "arguments for the existence of God" right now, as much as on epistemological assumptions....because those must be cleared up before any meaningful conversation about the existence of God can be had.

I've noticed that many of your assumptions (or Objectivist/Atheistic assumptions in general) are "invaluable concepts" and irrational-- and therefore must be rejected before Metaphysical matters (like the existence of God) can be discussed.

These assumptions are:

1) Naturalism- the idea that only physical nature exists.

and

2) The Principle of Falsifiability- the idea that only that which is empirically testable/observable can be considered true about the world.

I have shown that both are mere assumptions with no basis and further, that both are illogical and self-contradictory.

That is what the current discussion is about. That discussion must be had before any discussion about Metaphysics can be had on a meaningful level.

Some, like Dante, are arguing that one or both of those assumptions are valid (Dante is arguing that Naturalism is valid--I'm not sure what his position is on the Principle of Falsifiability). If you or anyone else have an argument/reason to believe that one or both of those assumptions are logical/valid/valuable, please submit it.

If not, I assume you reject them??...in which case we can continue a Metaphysical discussion on whether or not there is a God.

But only IF and WHEN these false epistemological assumptions are rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no actual infinities.

Entities provide the means of causation.

Since causality is inherently a potential, an infinite regress of causality is potential also. When you say that turning the key starts the car, the turn of the key isn't the direct cause. There are a potentially infinite number of steps between the turn of the key and the start of the car. This isn't an actual infinity. This is why there's an infinite regress of causality.

This argument is called the Kalam argument. I personally think it's awful, but a lot of people are taught it. It isn't rational at all because it worships a dead and impotent unmoved mover. That being said, Catholics, William Lane Craig, and all Muslims use this argument.

Edited by Drregaleagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'm assuming you are replying to something earlier in the thread. Unfortunately there have been a lot of rabbit trails and severe misunderstandings resulting in the horrendous length of this thread! haha. I really feel bad for anyone attempting to read it all the way through.

It has been realized that there are some fundamental epistemological differences that need to be worked through along with some metaphysical assumptions. That has been the focus since around post 180 (I think?).

Part of this has been over the validity of Logic. If you agree that Logic is valid, then you probably have no need to go back and re-read that debate.

The most recent part has been about two primary assumptions on the part of most Atheists. For the sake of clarity, I'd appreciate it if you could identify your position on these two issues (you can see the debate over these issues- especially the first- in the most recent posts on the thread).

1) Naturalism- The idea that only physical nature exists.

2) Principle of Falsifiability- The idea that only that which is empirically testable/"falsifiable" can be considered true about reality.

If you hold to either of these two assumptions, it will greatly hinder any further discussion concerning the existence of God..

Having said all that, I will reply to your post..

Since causality is inherently a potential, an infinite regress of causality is potential also.

My position (and the position of most who hold to no actual infinities) is that there are potential infinities (like a potentially infinite number of _________ in the future), but not an actual infinity (in the present or in the past..at any point in time).

When you say that turning the key starts the car, the turn of the key isn't the direct cause. There are a potentially infinite number of steps between the turn of the key and the start of the car. This isn't an actual infinity. This is why there's an infinite regress of causality.

I'm not sure that I know what you mean by "there are a potentially infinite number of steps between the turn...and the the start"

If it's "between" two definite points in time, isn't it by definition "necessarily finite" and therefore not "potentially infinite"??

Further, how does this show that there is an infinite regress of causality??

This argument is called the Kalam argument. I personally think it's awful, but a lot of people are taught it. It isn't rational at all because it worships a dead and impotent unmoved mover. That being said, Catholics, William Lane Craig, and all Muslims use this argument.

I'm not sure that I fully adhere to the Kalam argument (though I would probably use something similar..), but how exactly does it lead to "worshiping a dead and impotent unmoved mover"? This is a rather loaded phrase. Perhaps some that use the Kalam argument end up worshiping such a being, but does it necessarily lead to the worship of such a being?

And what on earth makes you think that an unmoved mover would be "dead and impotent". By definition, wouldn't a being who is wholly unmoved by anything outside of it, and who is moving everything outside of it by it's own will be the epitome of "alive" and "omnipotent"??

To say that an "unmoved mover" is "dead and impotent" is surely a contradiction of monumental proportions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position (and the position of most who hold to no actual infinities) is that there are potential infinities (like a potentially infinite number of _________ in the future), but not an actual infinity (in the present or in the past..at any point in time).

I'm not sure that I know what you mean by "there are a potentially infinite number of steps between the turn...and the the start"

If it's "between" two definite points in time, isn't it by definition "necessarily finite" and therefore not "potentially infinite"??

Further, how does this show that there is an infinite regress of causality??

The number of events between two events is potentially infinite as it is potentially infinite because every event can be broken down into sub-events. The idea of an "event" is a human product similar to a point. Events, like points, only potentially exist as they are infinitely small.

And what on earth makes you think that an unmoved mover would be "dead and impotent". By definition, wouldn't a being who is wholly unmoved by anything outside of it, and who is moving everything outside of it by it's own will be the epitome of "alive" and "omnipotent"??

To say that an "unmoved mover" is "dead and impotent" is surely a contradiction of monumental proportions.

According to Aristotle, the originator of the thought behind the Kalam and Cosmological Argument, the Unmoved Mover must be the source of all motion. However, Aristotle also postulates that everything moves. Therefore, the source of all motion must not exist currently. Hence, that god died at the inception of the universe if one accepts Aristotle's argument. Aristotle contradicts himself with this argument.

As for the all-powerful type of God, that cannot exist in reality either because it ultimately leads to other logical contradictions regardless of the argument put forth.

There is or was value in this conception of a Cosmological God for human convenience, but it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob said:

2) Principle of Falsifiability- The idea that only that which is empirically testable/"falsifiable" can be considered true about reality

Jacob, I dont have much time yet, but popped in to tell you that this is NOT what falsifiabilty is at all. No one parroting Popper seems to understand his skepticism. The above about a claim of something as "true" is verificationism which Popper rejected!

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob, I dont have much time yet, but popped in to tell you that this is NOT what falsifiabilty is at all. No one parroting Popper seems to understand his skepticism. The above about a claim of something as "true" is verificationism which Popper rejected!

Personally, I care very little about Popper's particular position. I care much more about yours and those of most Objectivists.

Do you accept this principle: "only that which is empirically testable can be said to be true"? If not, do you hold to a similar position, but worded differently? If this is the case, could you present your position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of events between two events is potentially infinite as it is potentially infinite because every event can be broken down into sub-events. The idea of an "event" is a human product similar to a point. Events, like points, only potentially exist as they are infinitely small.

If something is "infinitely small", whether an event or a point, then it does not exist. If it is eternally/infinitely divisible, then there is no "base" or "foundation" and therefore there is no thing there. This is similar to Zeno's "paradox". Therefore this argument for God not only applies chronologically to events, but metaphysically to every particle or point. There cannot be an infinite regress within something that actually exists (like an atom), because it would then not exist. Therefore, though it may be divisible many many times, ultimately there must be something eternally existent as its foundation or base.

According to Aristotle, the originator of the thought behind the Kalam and Cosmological Argument, the Unmoved Mover must be the source of all motion. However, Aristotle also postulates that everything moves. Therefore, the source of all motion must not exist currently. Hence, that god died at the inception of the universe if one accepts Aristotle's argument. Aristotle contradicts himself with this argument.

As for the all-powerful type of God, that cannot exist in reality either because it ultimately leads to other logical contradictions regardless of the argument put forth.

There is or was value in this conception of a Cosmological God for human convenience, but it doesn't exist.

If this "unmoved mover" is "needed" to explain the source of motion, it does not follow that after His beginning of motion that He fell over dead. lol! Just because you have no pragmatic purpose to think about it, does not make it dead. Again, think about your terms. If such a Being existed, He would be utterly independent of anything else and therefore the idea of Him somehow "dying" is somewhat absurd. He had no source or beginning and therefore had nothing upon which His existence was contingent- which would mean that He has life in Himself- that He is intrinsically alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I care very little about Popper's particular position. I care much more about yours and those of most Objectivists.

Do you accept this principle: "only that which is empirically testable can be said to be true"? If not, do you hold to a similar position, but worded differently? If this is the case, could you present your position?

Have you considered ITOE pg. 48

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you considered ITOE pg. 48

I agree with this.

The problem I am addressing is that many seem to be assuming something LIKE the Falsifiability Principle up front in many of their objections- even if they have not consciously thought about it.

Any objection that connotes anything similar to the following is derived from such illogical assumptions:

"there is no scientific evidence for that assertion and therefore it is absurd"

This objection, which has been articulated in many different ways is based on the assumption that "only that which is scientifically testable can be considered true" which is self-contradictory.

That is why I am urging you and all others to consciously think about the possible subconscious influences of such an assumption, and to reject them out of hand.

If we continue in discussion and the Atheists continue to revert back to objections based on faulty and illogical assumptions, then we will get no where.

So, if you reject the falsifiability principle (and all similar principles which make the same basic claim) out of hand, please say so, and we can move on from that issue.

If not, please submit your defense for holding to that assumption-- as I have displayed the irrationality of it numerous times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to part of what you said in my last post:

As for the all-powerful type of God, that cannot exist in reality either because it ultimately leads to other logical contradictions regardless of the argument put forth.

Really? How so? Could you give some examples of the logical contradictions which it leads to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? How so? Could you give some examples of the logical contradictions which it leads to?

An omnipotent God could not redefine objective truth. If you at 3:00 P.M. ate a late lunch on 11/23/2010 and drove to Wal-Mart, an omnipotent God could never ultimately change the substance of such truth. You might counter with the fact that God could travel back in time and alter events, but that time travel would only be from your perspective. Time is always moving forward from some frame of reference so it would still be an objective fact that from God's perspective at 3:00 P.M. you ate lunch and went to Wal-Mart. You might also argue that words can mean multiple things. They can, but the substance of the words intended meaning cannot change. God cannot change the fact that "A is A" in the same sense. This would destroy the ontological argument.

The transcendental argument for God is definitely the most clever in my opinion, but it has other flaws. This argument postulates that Logic and the laws of Logic are God, or at least one person of their holy trinity. The major flaw here is that the existence of logic is contingent on the existence of the human mind. To contend that logic exists without the mind is to claim that there is color without any eyes. There isn't. Without the sense of sight, the colors "red", "green", "yellow", etc wouldn't exist as they are human or animal perceptions by definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If something is "infinitely small", whether an event or a point, then it does not exist. If it is eternally/infinitely divisible, then there is no "base" or "foundation" and therefore there is no thing there. This is similar to Zeno's "paradox".

Which means that a first cause does not actually exist.

If this "unmoved mover" is "needed" to explain the source of motion, it does not follow that after His beginning of motion that He fell over dead. lol! Just because you have no pragmatic purpose to think about it, does not make it dead. Again, think about your terms. If such a Being existed, He would be utterly independent of anything else and therefore the idea of Him somehow "dying" is somewhat absurd.

Nope, the idea that an unmoved mover must have existed to ignite the universe is contingent on the postulate that everything is in motion. Since an unmoved mover is not in motion, he cannot currently exist in this system. Therefore, the unmoved mover would have existed in the beginning, but not currently. Hence, he died. Reread the proof, you don't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An omnipotent God could not redefine objective truth. If you at 3:00 P.M. ate a late lunch on 11/23/2010 and drove to Wal-Mart, an omnipotent God could never ultimately change the substance of such truth. You might counter with the fact that God could travel back in time and alter events, but that time travel would only be from your perspective. Time is always moving forward from some frame of reference so it would still be an objective fact that from God's perspective at 3:00 P.M. you ate lunch and went to Wal-Mart. You might also argue that words can mean multiple things. They can, but the substance of the words intended meaning cannot change. God cannot change the fact that "A is A" in the same sense. This would destroy the ontological argument.s

Agreed. I don't see the problem. I'm assuming that the "problem" you are trying to point out is that "omnipotent" means the ability to do anything and everything imaginable and that even such a being would not be able to change or alter "A is A", etc.. and therefore such a being does not exist.

This is similar to the ridiculous question which says "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?".

The answer is that this is a meaningless combination of words. And, as C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, "a meaningless combination of words does not suddenly obtain meaning because we slap the words 'Can God' on the beginning of it".

Let me explain. To be Omnipotent is to have all ability- to do actual things. Altering the fact that "A is A" would not be a "power" or an "ability". It would be a deprivation. To word this "objection"/"problem" another way, it basically says "Is an all powerful being 'ABLE' to lack a power?" The answer, of course is "no". And so it is declared "Aha! Then He isn't ABLE to do something!".

Notice though, that the inability to lack a power (i.e. the inability to have a weakness) is not a weakness or a lack of actual ability.

God cannot change the truth that I exist at this point in time. He cannot change the fact that "A is A". He cannot die. He cannot betray Himself. He cannot lie. He cannot do anything without the enjoyment of Himself being His ultimate motivating factor.

But none of these are evidence that He is not omnipotent. Rather, the opposite. They are all statements describing His omnipotence- His inability to be less than what He is.

The transcendental argument for God is definitely the most clever in my opinion, but it has other flaws. This argument postulates that Logic and the laws of Logic are God, or at least one person of their holy trinity. The major flaw here is that the existence of logic is contingent on the existence of the human mind. To contend that logic exists without the mind is to claim that there is color without any eyes. There isn't. Without the sense of sight, the colors "red", "green", "yellow", etc wouldn't exist as they are human or animal perceptions by definition.

While I have not studied the "TAG" with much depth, I would hold to the conclusion; that God is Logic..or rather that Logic is simply an expression describing part of the nature of God.

However, even from an Atheistic standpoint, I don't think you want to argue that Logic is dependent on the human mind (or color for that matter). This would make both merely subjective figments of our imaginations. Logic does not JUST apply to the ideas in our heads. It applies to the ideas in our heads because it applies invincibly to all of reality outside of our heads. This is what is meant by the assertion that "Contradictions do not exist". They can not. Even if no human mind ever existed, this would not change the fact that "A hydrogen molecule is a hydrogen molecule" or that "reality is" or that "A is A". Square circles do not exist. They cannot. I am not merely saying that it is "illogical and therefore wrong" for a human to say that Square Circles exist. I am saying that the reason it is illogical and wrong is because Square Circles CAN NOT exist. God, Himself, could not even imagine a Square Circle- which, again, is not the lack of an ability since the ability to imagine the illogical is no ability at all.

To say that logic does not apply to objective reality is to say that contradictions are possible- which completely cuts away any "pragmatic use" of the laws of logic in our own thinking and thus cuts away the possibility of any and all knowledge. I don't think you want to go there...

Likewise with color, the ocean and the sky would still be "blue" even if no human had ever observed it. It wouldn't be called "blue", but it would be THAT particular color (which we refer to when we say "blue") and not another particular color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means that a first cause does not actually exist.

I think we are speaking past each other...I don't hold that the first cause is infinitely small or divisible...so what are you getting at here??

Nope, the idea that an unmoved mover must have existed to ignite the universe is contingent on the postulate that everything is in motion.

Not sure I follow why this is the case. Why is it contingent upon this postulate?

Since an unmoved mover is not in motion, he cannot currently exist in this system. Therefore, the unmoved mover would have existed in the beginning, but not currently. Hence, he died.

What makes you think that an "unmoved mover" is not in motion???

Reread the proof, you don't understand it.

What proof? If you're speaking of Aristotle's, I'd really rather not base this on HIS proof since I likely would not agree with some/part of it- not to mention the task of reading his arguments and trying to understand what he meant and did not mean.

I'd much rather deal with my position and yours- since I have direct access to mine and you have direct access to yours. It seems a valuable discussion is much more possible in this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise with color, the ocean and the sky would still be "blue" even if no human had ever observed it. It wouldn't be called "blue", but it would be THAT particular color (which we refer to when we say "blue") and not another particular color.

I realized that the way I put this could have been understood vaguely. I know that color is technically in light. But my point is that the properties that make something one particular color and not an other- the properties in an object which cause the light to refract and reflect in that particular way are not dependent upon the human mind. Those properties which cause what we refer to as color would be the same even if we did not perceive them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this.

"there is no scientific evidence for that assertion and therefore it is absurd"

Leonard Peikoff addresses this in OPAR in Chapter 5 under the subheading The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False.

Dog, Cat, Man as against tree, flower, grass are integrated under Animal, or Plant.

Animal, Plant, Insects as against rock, dirt, water are integrated under Living Organism, or Inanimate Object.

Living Organism, Inanimate Object can be integrated under Entity

Likewise, Entity can be broken down, or reduced back to the perceptual level by tracing the logical heirarchy that gave rise to it.

Invalid Concepts cannot trace their roots logically or heirarchially back to the perceptual level. God, ghost, demons, are examples of such.

Most attempts to validate these rely on Stolen Concepts to smuggle in a false sense of validity, and only then with those who have not have a firm grasp on establishing the validity of the concepts as referenced in the ITOE quote you acknowledge agreement with.

Edited to add:

Even if the words and the concepts they refer to can be validated by the relating to them to the existents which gives rise to them, the proposition still needs to align with the directly observable, or be based on other propositions that can have their veracity established as well.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leonard Peikoff addresses this in OPAR in Chapter 5 under the subheading The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False.

Dog, Cat, Man as against tree, flower, grass are integrated under Animal, or Plant.

Animal, Plant, Insects as against rock, dirt, water are integrated under Living Organism, or Inanimate Object.

Living Organism, Inanimate Object can be integrated under Entity

Likewise, Entity can be broken down, or reduced back to the perceptual level by tracing the logical heirarchy that gave rise to it.

Invalid Concepts cannot trace their roots logically or heirarchially back to the perceptual level. God, ghost, demons, are examples of such.

Most attempts to validate these rely on Stolen Concepts to smuggle in a false sense of validity, and only then with those who have not have a firm grasp on establishing the validity of the concepts as referenced in the ITOE quote you acknowledge agreement with.

Edited to add:

Even if the words and the concepts they refer to can be validated by the relating to them to the existents which gives rise to them, the proposition still needs to align with the directly observable, or be based on other propositions that can have their veracity established as well.

In so far as I correctly understand the plain meaning of what you've said, I agree- with the exception of the emboldened statements.

These statements seem to imply that "that which is not traceable back to the perceptual level/ultimately directly observable is arbitrary".

But these statements, these assumptions, are not traceable back to the perceptual level or directly observable and therefore, by their own definitions are arbitrary.

The Empirical/ Synthetic/ Directly observable/ Perceptual ALONE is not sufficient to be the standard of that which is to be considered true or arbitrary.

Likewise, in most cases

The Rational/ Analytic/ Deductible / Logical ALONE is not always true and therefore can be arbitrary.

However, there are (and must be) some cases in which the Logical apart from the perceptual is not arbitrary- and further- is absolutely true. Exhibit a: "A is A". Exhibit b: "There is absolute truth". Exhibit c: "There are no square circles". Exhibit d: "Contradictions do not exist".

This does not mean that unicorns are true just because they are not illogical! I know that's what you are afraid of. That is not what I am saying. I am not saying that if something is logically coherent (non-contradictory) that it is automatically true. I am not saying that. I am not saying that.

I am saying that some things are automatically true, apart from perception/observation, if they are logically necessary; i.e. if their opposite is logically contradictory.

Therefore something should be considered absurd if there is no logically necessary reason to believe that it is so and if there is no perceptual evidence to believe that it is so. To take one without the other is to participate in that "Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy". The way I am proposing we think about truth is the only way to avoid such a dichotomy.

You NEED to come to terms with this. You NEED to let go of your obsession with the purely perceptual. I do not think that Rand operated on the purely perceptual at all. Perhaps she thought she did, but it is quite evident that she did not.

These assumptions that "only that which is perceptual/observable is true" are illogical, self-contradictory, and disastrous to philosophy and human knowledge in general. It is, I fear, what Rand would have referred to as "mystics of muscle" if taken seriously. The trick is that no one actually takes these purely perceptual assumptions seriously because it is impossible to do so without reverting into a chimpanzee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In so far as I correctly understand the plain meaning of what you've said, I agree- with the exception of the emboldened statements.

These statements seem to imply that "that which is not traceable back to the perceptual level/ultimately directly observable is arbitrary".

But these statements, these assumptions, are not traceable back to the perceptual level or directly observable and therefore, by their own definitions are arbitrary.

The emboldened statement states that the concept is invalid, not arbitrary.

The Empirical/ Synthetic/ Directly observable/ Perceptual ALONE is not sufficient to be the standard of that which is to be considered true or arbitrary.

Likewise, in most cases

The Rational/ Analytic/ Deductible / Logical ALONE is not always true and therefore can be arbitrary.

The method of developing concepts is based on a relationship between existence and consciousness - the data of sense provides the material for abstracting our concepts.

However, there are (and must be) some cases in which the Logical apart from the perceptual is not arbitrary- and further- is absolutely true. Exhibit a: "A is A". Exhibit b: "There is absolute truth". Exhibit c: "There are no square circles". Exhibit d: "Contradictions do not exist".

This does not mean that unicorns are true just because they are not illogical! I know that's what you are afraid of. That is not what I am saying. I am not saying that if something is logically coherent (non-contradictory) that it is automatically true. I am not saying that. I am not saying that.

The analytic/synthetic dichotomy is not based on Rand's theory of concepts. It relies on divorcing the concepts from reality, and counts on you treating them as floating abstractions for its power.

Unicorns are described as horses with a horn, both of which are observable independently, and via the human capacity for fantasy allow us to conjure an image in our minds of what that might be. While horses are a real and valid concept, and a horn is a real and valid concept as an attribute of rhino's, bull's and buffalo's, - the stolen concept is applying the horn to the horse, ignoring that it belongs to the latter.

I am saying that some things are automatically true, apart from perception/observation, if they are logically necessary; i.e. if their opposite is logically contradictory.

Therefore something should be considered absurd if there is no logically necessary reason to believe that it is so and if there is no perceptual evidence to believe that it is so. To take one without the other is to participate in that "Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy". The way I am proposing we think about truth is the only way to avoid such a dichotomy.

Declaring that something is automatically true is an example of using true as a stolen concept. The true is an end product of a method that need be discovered by man's mind. This method is identified by the science of epistemology. The science of epistemology relies on concepts to assert the methods it discovers. A method of validating your concepts is necessary to validate your propositions.

You NEED to come to terms with this. You NEED to let go of your obsession with the purely perceptual. I do not think that Rand operated on the purely perceptual at all. Perhaps she thought she did, but it is quite evident that she did not.

I only need to come to terms with how intellectually honest you are being. What we are discussing here is conceptual, not purely perceptual. Your original post suggests familiarity with Objectivism. Your assertions do not suggest that you have integrated much of Miss Rands Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, especially her breakdown of the method or process by which concepts are formulated.

These assumptions that "only that which is perceptual/observable is true" are illogical, self-contradictory, and disastrous to philosophy and human knowledge in general. It is, I fear, what Rand would have referred to as "mystics of muscle" if taken seriously. The trick is that no one actually takes these purely perceptual assumptions seriously because it is impossible to do so without reverting into a chimpanzee.

If what Rand proposes is so illogical, self-contradictory and disastrous to philosophy and human knowledge in general, why does this and other similar threads generate so much interest? Are you just trying to 'save' Objectivist's from their errors by pointing them out in this manner? Or does the certainty that Objectivist acquire via the application of a methodology that is in alignment with reality draw you to honestly try to grasp why it is different and what sets it apart from the others? Or could it be that there is a fear that if Objectivism becomes nearly as prevalent as Aristotle's influence observed as 'common sense' is, the ramifications that would hold for those who desire to place the 'whim' above the 'what is'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are speaking past each other...I don't hold that the first cause is infinitely small or divisible...so what are you getting at here??

Not sure I follow why this is the case. Why is it contingent upon this postulate?

What makes you think that an "unmoved mover" is not in motion???

What proof? If you're speaking of Aristotle's, I'd really rather not base this on HIS proof since I likely would not agree with some/part of it- not to mention the task of reading his arguments and trying to understand what he meant and did not mean.

I'd much rather deal with my position and yours- since I have direct access to mine and you have direct access to yours. It seems a valuable discussion is much more possible in this way.

Fair enough. Regarding color, it is objective but still observer dependent. Color, by definition, is a state at which an observer sees it and a concept of the mind. A color is an attribute of sensory interpretation, a concept used in thought. Without any concept formers, concepts wouldn't exist. Matter exists independently of sense perception, but our sense perceptions of matter do not exist outside of our minds per the Law of Identity.

Regarding the unmoved mover, he must be unmoved. He cannot be in motion presently.

Any event that created the universe would have operated under certain laws of creation. Therefore, this event would only have created the known universe and not the universe by definition. A being cannot exist outside of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Regarding color, it is objective but still observer dependent. Color, by definition, is a state at which an observer sees it and a concept of the mind. A color is an attribute of sensory interpretation, a concept used in thought. Without any concept formers, concepts wouldn't exist. Matter exists independently of sense perception, but our sense perceptions of matter do not exist outside of our minds per the Law of Identity.

Agreed. I just want to emphasize that the attributes of entities which cause the perception of a particular color are objective. So while "color" (meaning the perception of light refracted in a specific way) is perceptual, the "color" (meaning the attributes of the object which cause the light to refract in that specific way and not some other way) is objective.... I guess (as far as I can tell), it seems that two different senses of the term "color" would be helpful.

Regarding the unmoved mover, he must be unmoved. He cannot be in motion presently.

Ok. I think there is some confusion here. By "unmoved" I (and I think other Theists) don't mean "not moving". I mean "not moved upon by anything outside of it". It is unmoved in the sense that it's actions (movement) are not explained/explainable by anything outside of it- but rather only explainable by it's own volition.

Any event that created the universe would have operated under certain laws of creation. Therefore, this event would only have created the known universe and not the universe by definition. A being cannot exist outside of the universe.

If you define "universe" as "all of reality", then I agree with you- and using this meaning of "universe", I do not postulate that God created the universe (since this would imply that He created Himself since He is part of "all reality").

However, if you define "universe" as "all of physical reality", then there is no problem with saying that God created it.

I do not know of any thinking Theist (granted- there aren't many!) who claims that God created everything in reality- including Himself. Rather, the position of Theism is that God created everything else- everything that is not Himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The emboldened statement states that the concept is invalid, not arbitrary.

Hahaha. Ok. Substitute "invalid" where I said "arbitrary". Doesn't make a difference. That assumption is still contradictory and therefore false.

The assumption that "only that which is traceable back to the perceptual/observable is valid" or that "anything not traceable back to the perceptual/observable is invalid" are both not valid by their own standards. This assumption is self-contradictory, invalid by its own standards, illogical, and therefore needs to be rejected.

The main reason this is the case is because of the words "only" and "any". If you get rid of those words in your assumptions, then I completely agree with you.

The method of developing concepts is based on a relationship between existence and consciousness - the data of sense provides the material for abstracting our concepts.

The analytic/synthetic dichotomy is not based on Rand's theory of concepts. It relies on divorcing the concepts from reality, and counts on you treating them as floating abstractions for its power.

Unicorns are described as horses with a horn, both of which are observable independently, and via the human capacity for fantasy allow us to conjure an image in our minds of what that might be. While horses are a real and valid concept, and a horn is a real and valid concept as an attribute of rhino's, bull's and buffalo's, - the stolen concept is applying the horn to the horse, ignoring that it belongs to the latter.

Yep. I know how the concept of a unicorn is formed. I know it is an invalid concept. I agree. I brought it up because I knew that you would suspect that I was asserting that such concepts were valid or true. I emphasized quite heavily that this is not what I was sayng. Just for re-emphasis, I am not saying that concepts like unicorns (i.e. concepts that are "logically coherent" but not "logically necessary" and have no perceptual evidence) are true or valid. I am not saying that.

Declaring that something is automatically true is an example of using true as a stolen concept. The true is an end product of a method that need be discovered by man's mind. This method is identified by the science of epistemology. The science of epistemology relies on concepts to assert the methods it discovers. A method of validating your concepts is necessary to validate your propositions.

Yep. And if the only form of validating our concepts is through perception, then the concept that "the only way to validate concepts is through perception" is not able to be validated- since it is not perceivable. Therefore, as shown above, it is invalid by its own standards and must be rejected.

However, I do hold that perception is one of the main ways to validate our concepts- but not the only.

I only need to come to terms with how intellectually honest you are being. What we are discussing here is conceptual, not purely perceptual. Your original post suggests familiarity with Objectivism. Your assertions do not suggest that you have integrated much of Miss Rands Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, especially her breakdown of the method or process by which concepts are formulated.

If what Rand proposes is so illogical, self-contradictory and disastrous to philosophy and human knowledge in general, why does this and other similar threads generate so much interest? Are you just trying to 'save' Objectivist's from their errors by pointing them out in this manner? Or does the certainty that Objectivist acquire via the application of a methodology that is in alignment with reality draw you to honestly try to grasp why it is different and what sets it apart from the others? Or could it be that there is a fear that if Objectivism becomes nearly as prevalent as Aristotle's influence observed as 'common sense' is, the ramifications that would hold for those who desire to place the 'whim' above the 'what is'?

I have attempted to make my position clear on this several times. I agree with Rand's descriptions of our cognitive process and how we come to form concepts, etc.. However, I am contending that if this is treated as the only form of epistemology, then it is irrational. I do not think that Rand treated perception as the only form of epistemology. She may have stated that it was, but she did not function in that way. If she did, she would not have been able to say "Contradiction do not exist" among many other things.

Likewise, you cannot say that "contradiction do not exist" or that "A is A" unless you admit that knowledge is possible apart from perception. The most you can do is say that "no perceptual evidence of contradictions have been discovered and therefore as far as I currently know, there are no contradictions". But this implies that contradictions are possible and that the only reason we believe in the Laws of Logic is because we've never happened to see contradictions. If contradictions are possible than no certainty is possible.

The conceptual level of thought is dependent on more than perception. It is dependent upon logic. And logic is not dependent upon perception. Therefore there are some things that are logically true (A is A, no Square circles, etc..) apart from perceptual evidence.

Just answer these simple questions:

Are square circles possible? Are contradictions possible? Is "A is A" true- of any and all possible things that can be plugged in for "A".

And did you need perception in order to answer any of these? If so, please explain how perception was necessary for such explanation.

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Rand's descriptions of our cognitive process and how we come to form concepts, etc.. However, I am contending that if this is treated as the only form of epistemology, then it is irrational. I do not think that Rand treated perception as the only form of epistemology.

Perception is hierarchically prior to discovering the methods of logic. There is not a direct path from one to the other. Peikoff contends Aristotle relied on pre-Euclidean geometry as an example of clarity and correctness in thought. Here is an excerpt from my notes to lecture two of Peikoff's The Unity in Ethics and Epistemology, where the topic is the "spiral theory of knowledge".

II. Logic and Mathematics

Which comes first, logic or mathematics? The case that logic comes first is that the laws and methods of philosophy and specifically epistemology are necessary to think at all in any field including mathematics. The case that mathematics comes first is based on the historical inquiry into how Aristotle came to grasp logic as an explicit subject matter and method.

Aristotle did not invent logic from nothing or get it by revelation. He did not pace about the agora or the Academy collecting samples of arguments out of context. What Aristotle needed was a major organized exhibition of pure logic in detailed application from which the method could be abstracted from the subject matter. Pre-Euclidean geometry was that subject. After logic was made explicit it could be applied to more abstract mathematics such as algebra. In the Renaissance algebra was combined with natural philosophy to create mathematical physics. This in turn prompted further developments in math such as calculus. {and Ayn Rand's idea of measurement omission in concept formation presumes not just that everything has identity, but specifically that everything has measurements, the premise of mathematical physics.}

Again the pattern appears; in a sense logic precedes deduction, but large scale deduction had to precede logic. All knowledge is one, and these two movements constitute a spiral within the unity of knowledge.

The advantage of early geometry is that one could see as self-evident that contradictions are impossible because triangles would not close, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perception is hierarchically prior to discovering the methods of logic. There is not a direct path from one to the other. Peikoff contends Aristotle relied on pre-Euclidean geometry as an example of clarity and correctness in thought. Here is an excerpt from my notes to lecture two of Peikoff's The Unity in Ethics and Epistemology, where the topic is the "spiral theory of knowledge".

The advantage of early geometry is that one could see as self-evident that contradictions are impossible because triangles would not close, etc.

I don't mean to sound rude, but this issue is getting tiresome because I have spent so much time and energy trying to specify what I am saying and what I am not saying-- and most of the responders (on this issue) seem to not be reading or understanding what I am saying.

I completely agree with you and Objectivists that "perception is prior to discovering logic" and that logic does not come automatically through intuition or divine revelation or innate ideas or anything of the sort. I completely agree. I completely agree. I completely agree.

Please do not respond as if I disagree on this issue. I do not.

However, please read the following carefully and respond to it accordingly.

Logic is systematically foundational to perception. NOT in discovery of it. NOT in our experience of it. But in our use of it and our understanding of it. It is foundational in the same way that chemistry is foundational to biology. When we say that chemistry is foundational to biology, we are NOT saying that we experience or discover chemistry first. The order in which we experience/discover them matters very little. For most of us we discover that biology long before we discover chemistry- and yet we see how chemistry is foundational to biology since biological organisms are made up of the stuff of chemistry. That is why chemistry is foundational. It has NOTHING to do with experience or discovery. NOTHING AT ALL. Likewise with physics being foundational to chemistry. Likewise with Metaphysics being foundational to ethics.

I really don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to grasp this "sense" of "foundational" when it comes to logic- and yet they understand it easily with other issues.

Logic is foundational to all ideas (in this systematic sense. NOT in experience or discover!!). And most of our ideas are about what is perceived (especially our early ideas). But it is possible and right to have "non-perceptual" ideas. It is, however, wrong to have illogical ideas.

If logic is not systematically foundational in this sense, that would imply that perceptual evidence of contradictions is possible- Just like if metaphysics were not systematically foundational to ethics in that sense, it would be possible for a rational ethical command apart from metaphysical facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You contradict yourself when you claim to agree that "perception is prior to discovering logic" yet still insist "Logic is foundational to all ideas (in this systematic sense. NOT in experience or discover!!)." Logic is an idea that needs a foundation, and it cannot be a foundation to itself because that would be circular.

Edited by Grames
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...