Argument for the existence of God

[Jacob86]

Jacob,

In post 589 you state that you think some knowledge is possible based on logic alone.

Thus if we eliminate all knowledge that is based on perception to any degree, that which remains must be purely based upon logic.

What knowledge in your view remains when all perceptually derived knowledge is removed?

Again: we need to define more clearly what is meant by "base" or "foundation" or "starting point" when we are discussing this. I have made my point on this a million times and no one seems to understand the distinction.

I AGREE that the knowledge of the definitions of "square" and "circle" are dependent on perception (And logic).

When I say "knowledge based on logic alone" I mean am not talking about the historical discovery of the definition of one's terms. I am talking about an appeal to evidence.

So, if we are agreed (through perception and logic) on the definitions of "square" and "circle" than we do not need to appeal to perceptual evidence to prove that there are no square circles.

By "appealing to perceptual evidence" I mean breaking out graph paper and trying to draw a square circle. I do not mean "remembering one's definitions" when I say "appeal to perceptual evidence".

I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE that perceptual evidence is necessary in the formation of definition.

I am saying that, given the definitions, there are certain things which can be known by logical necessity apart from looking for empirical data to back up the proposition in question.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

It is the difference between "how do I come to know something?" and "how is something validated as true?" One is Subjective. The other is Objective.

If you don't see the difference, I do not know how else to try and show it.

But I do know that without this difference, Objectivism will sink into empiricism and skepticism rather quickly.

[Jacob86]

I don't think anyone said *entirely* reducible to perception, the idea is that perception is the base of knowledge (that's in the second paragraph of ITOE chapter 1), meaning that you could trace any valid abstraction back to a first-level concept that is perceptual. There might be some implicit use of logic in forming those first-level concepts here, but the given is the perceptual. The perceptual is what you start with before any method, including logic, is applied.

Yes, I have stated numerous times that I agree with all of the above. I agree that the perceptual is what you start with before any method, including logic, is applied. IF by "start" and "before" you are referring to the chronology of the subject (the knower) rather than the validation of the object (the thing in question which is to be known as true or rejected as false). Huge difference.

[Greebo]

Again: we need to define more clearly what is meant by "base" or "foundation" or "starting point" when we are discussing this. I have made my point on this a million times and no one seems to understand the distinction.

I AGREE that the knowledge of the definitions of "square" and "circle" are dependent on perception (And logic).

When I say "knowledge based on logic alone" I mean am not talking about the historical discovery of the definition of one's terms. I am talking about an appeal to evidence.

Stop there.

If you wish to break the definition apart from the evidence which validates it, you create a floating abstraction.

The definition of a Square or a Circle requires the validation of evidence to be considered a Truth.

Once the definition is proven, one need not re-prove the definition every time one considers a Square or a Circle. The very proof of of the definition *IS* an implicit appeal to evidence - the evidence inherent in the proof.

So, if we are agreed (through perception and logic) on the definitions of "square" and "circle" than we do not need to appeal to perceptual evidence to prove that there are no square circles.

By "appealing to perceptual evidence" I mean breaking out graph paper and trying to draw a square circle. I do not mean "remembering one's definitions" when I say "appeal to perceptual evidence".

But because the very definition of square and circle are based on precepts that have been abstracted, referring to those definitions *is* the epistemological equivalent of breaking out the paper and pencil. The difference is in the action - not in the result. Both methods validly prove the same thing - that a Square is, that a Circle is. One does so by repeating the original proof - the other method refers to the already proven which implicitly contains ... the original proof.

I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE that perceptual evidence is necessary in the formation of definition.

I am saying that, given the definitions, there are certain things which can be known by logical necessity apart from looking for empirical data to back up the proposition in question.

But you cannot remove the fact that the definition are perceptually grounded, or you are context dropping. If we take the definition "as given" without grounding then we are saying that definitions do not need grounding to be true. You cannot say that the definition of a square is true without grounding because the definition of a square *IS* and forever more is grounded.

If you disagree, then please explain how you can consider a definition if you disregard that it is proved perceptually to begin with?

And then again, I ask - such as what? What is it that can be known without perceptually based data?

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

It is the difference between "how do I come to know something?" and "how is something validated as true?" One is Subjective. The other is Objective.

If you don't see the difference, I do not know how else to try and show it.

But I do know that without this difference, Objectivism will sink into empiricism and skepticism rather quickly.

I do see the difference - but then you bring the definition of "know" into question? Can you *know* something if it has not been validated as true?

[Eiuol]

Yes, I have stated numerous times that I agree with all of the above. I agree that the perceptual is what you start with before any method, including logic, is applied. IF by "start" and "before" you are referring to the chronology of the subject (the knower) rather than the validation of the object (the thing in question which is to be known as true or rejected as false). Huge difference.

And because the perceptual is the base of knowledge, god is therefore completely invalid because nothing about the concept of god can be linked to something that exists in reality. </thread>

Logic as a process itself is not something perceptual, it is made up of abstractions of abstractions which in turn at some point are made up of first-level concepts like table which are perceptual. That's about it. Logic is a fundamental method of obtaining knowledge, that is absolutely true. Still, perception is the given. You don't do logic to see a table or an apple or a strange object you've never seen before. The reason Objectivism doesn't fall into an empiricist trap is because of how abstractions like "justice" can be valid and objective even though you can never see or touch "justice". Whether or not you agree with it, can you explain how to validate the concept of "justice" from an Objectivist viewpoint? Don't worry about explaining the whole process, it would be a complex one, but what's the absolute FIRST step to validate your concept of justice? How do you know you just didn't make it up because it sounds cool? I'm not really interested in your answer (but for yourself, it is a crucial question that is worth answering), because really if you agree that the perceptual is what you start with before any method, that it's the base of knowledge, then anything without that base is literally detached from reality. A floating abstraction. A balloon untethered, free to float wherever it pleases, even to the alternate 11th dimension where gravity doesn't exist.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Eiuol

[Jacob86]

And because the perceptual is the base of knowledge, god is therefore completely invalid because nothing about the concept of god can be linked to something that exists in reality. </thread>

Logic as a process itself is not something perceptual, it is made up of abstractions of abstractions which in turn at some point are made up of first-level concepts like table which are perceptual. That's about it. Logic is a fundamental method of obtaining knowledge, that is absolutely true. Still, perception is the given. You don't do logic to see a table or an apple or a strange object you've never seen before. The reason Objectivism doesn't fall into an empiricist trap is because of how abstractions like "justice" can be valid and objective even though you can never see or touch "justice". Whether or not you agree with it, can you explain how to validate the concept of "justice" from an Objectivist viewpoint? Don't worry about explaining the whole process, it would be a complex one, but what's the absolute FIRST step to validate your concept of justice? How do you know you just didn't make it up because it sounds cool? I'm not really interested in your answer (but for yourself, it is a crucial question that is worth answering), because really if you agree that the perceptual is what you start with before any method, that it's the base of knowledge, then anything without that base is literally detached from reality. A floating abstraction. A balloon untethered, free to float wherever it pleases, even to the alternate 11th dimension where gravity doesn't exist.

Ok....I think I understand what you guys are saying though it seems entirely irrelevant. If someone makes up a word that has no referents to reality (i.e a "floating abstraction"), then all one needs to do is ask "to what does this word refer?" If the answer is "nothing" or "I don't know", than no further conversation is needed.

If you are asking for my "referent" for the term "God", it is the necessary being. Now, you can doubt that such a necessary being exists on the basis of the fact that you cannot see it-- but the inability to see something is not proof of its non-existence. Likewise, unless I demonstrate that there is a reason to believe that this being exists, then I have no reason to believe it exists either.

My shortest and most concise argument for the existence of God is as follows:

-"An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature" -John Galt

-If there is not an entity whose nature gives it the ability to act of its own accord, then there is no action.

-There is action.

-Therefore there is an entity whose nature is such that it is able to act of its own accord.

-The ability of an entity to act of its own accord implies volition. Volition implies value. Value implies a mind.

-Therefore the entity whose nature is such that it is able to act of its own accord is a "person" having a mind, values, and volition.

If you demand a "connection to perceptual reality", it is "there is action". The rest follows logically from there.

If your reply to this is that "we cannot perceive this being", than my reply to you is "neither can you perceive all entities having identity, and yet you claim to know that it is true". Reality is not reducible to our perception.

[Grames]

By the way, does any one know where the premise that "all knowledge is entirely reducible to perception" came from??

New concepts can be formed by integrating earlier-formed concepts into wider categories, or by subdividing them into narrower categories (a process which we shall discuss later). But all concepts are ultimately reducible to their base in perceptual entities, which are the base (the given) of man's cognitive development.

Could not be more clear.

[Eiuol]

If you are asking for my "referent" for the term "God", it is the necessary being. Now, you can doubt that such a necessary being exists on the basis of the fact that you cannot see it-- but the inability to see something is not proof of its non-existence.

Since you seem to be missing the point, I am actually interested now in how you'd validate the concept of justice. You can't perceive justice directly, not at all. Neither can you perceive god directly. But why is it that an Objectivist viewpoint would say justice is a valid concept, but god is not? (I fear that'd make things go in a circle again, but at least this way I can point out at least in some way what it means to say something is reducible to the perceptual level).

Edited December 6, 2010 by Eiuol

[Greebo]

My shortest and most concise argument for the existence of God is as follows:

-"An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature" -John Galt

-If there is not an entity whose nature gives it the ability to act of its own accord, then there is no action.

By "act of it's own accord" you mean volitional action - action by choice? As opposed to metaphysical actions (reactions) with no volition like rocks crashing into the earth from space, helium and hydrogen molecules fusing into more complex atoms within stars, etc. Is that right?

If so, then I find no immediate problem with this "volitional action implies consciousness" concept. However, if you are incorporating the metaphysical reactions, then we have a problem here. If you mean the latter, then reality clearly contradicts this, as there are any number of actions which occur without a consciousness directing them.

-There is action.

True

-Therefore there is an entity whose nature is such that it is able to act of its own accord.

And here is the first serious flaw (possibly the second depending on the earlier one).

IF A THEN B does not mean IF B THEN A.

"If the animal is a dog, then it has fur." "This animal has fur." "Therefore, it is a dog." "*meow*"

Which takes us back to #1 - whereby you may have meant to say "IF and ONLY IF there is no consciousness, there is no action" - in which case we return to the faulty premise.

[Jacob86]

By "act of it's own accord" you mean volitional action - action by choice? As opposed to metaphysical actions (reactions) with no volition like rocks crashing into the earth from space, helium and hydrogen molecules fusing into more complex atoms within stars, etc. Is that right?

Yes, by "act of it's own accord" I mean volitional action as opposed to a reaction. That is because a REaction is an action resulting from a prior action.

If so, then I find no immediate problem with this "volitional action implies consciousness" concept. However, if you are incorporating the metaphysical reactions, then we have a problem here. If you mean the latter, then reality clearly contradicts this, as there are any number of actions which occur without a consciousness directing them.

You understand me correctly. I am not talking about the "metaphysical reactions" since all of these imply prior action. These metaphysical reactions are all "action", but there would be no action at all (and therefore no metaphysical REactions) if there was not an entity which by nature could act "of its own accord"/"volitionally".

IF A THEN B does not mean IF B THEN A.

"If the animal is a dog, then it has fur." "This animal has fur." "Therefore, it is a dog." "*meow*"

Which takes us back to #1 - whereby you may have meant to say "IF and ONLY IF there is no consciousness, there is no action" - in which case we return to the faulty premise.

I THINK I understand what you're saying here, so I'm going to give an answer...but if my answer misunderstands your objection, let me know.

In the second premise (If there is not a "volitional entity" there would be no action), what I mean is that such an entity is a necessary sufficient cause for there to be action such that action is only possible if such an entity exists. Does that make sense?

So, yes- in a sense I am saying "IF and ONLY IF there is volitional action, there is action".

I think you might be focusing on the fact that there are two types of "action" being considered: The volitional and the non-volitional (reactionary). But the second type of action is entirely dependent upon other outside actions, such that NO reactions could be possible apart from non-reactionary action. So if there is the second type, there must be the first type. If the first type did not exist, the second type (REactions) could not exist. Since the second type do exist, the first type must exist.

[Greebo]

So after all this, we boil down to the crux of your argument for God - which is the prime mover argument.

You're saying that because there is reaction, there must be some primary action which set everything in motion, and since action must either be caused by reaction or by volition, there must have been some prime volition to set the first action in motion.

And with that you conveniently side step the recursive fallacy - and step right into the recursive fallacy.

For if there MUST have been a prime action which was not a reaction but a volitional action, then there MUST have been a consciousness to will the first action into starting, but then there ALSO MUST have been a cause *FOR* the first consciousness because consciousness is ALSO an action - consciousness acts to perceive.

This is no proof at all. This is arbitrary just as all other arguments for God are arbitrary.

There is no proof that all actions require preceding actions OR volition. You are trying to enforce the rule of cause and effect universally with one exception - God. But we know existence exists. If the rule of C&E can have an exception, then by Occam's razor, it is much more likely that it is existence itself which is the exception to the rule of C&E, and not some arbitrary consciousness which defies all explanation but "somehow" violates C&E and creates it simultaneously.

In point of fact, there is actual theoretical evidence to the contrary, in fact. Stephen Hawking has theorized that in the deep vacuums of space, *potential* energy coalesces into matter and anti-matter particles. (Remember, matter is energy in a transformed state). Potential energy is energy which can happen, but is not happening - like a wound up spring, or a rock held above the ground.

[dream_weaver]

This assumes that stillness is the natural state of the universe, does it not?

[Jacob86]

So after all this, we boil down to the crux of your argument for God - which is the prime mover argument.

You're saying that because there is reaction, there must be some primary action which set everything in motion, and since action must either be caused by reaction or by volition, there must have been some prime volition to set the first action in motion.

And with that you conveniently side step the recursive fallacy - and step right into the recursive fallacy.

I'm not familiar with a "recursive fallacy". Could you explain what you mean by it and how you think I have committed it? (Unless the below is your unpacking of this).

For if there MUST have been a prime action which was not a reaction but a volitional action, then there MUST have been a consciousness to will the first action into starting, but then there ALSO MUST have been a cause *FOR* the first consciousness because consciousness is ALSO an action - consciousness acts to perceive.

You have switched types of "causes" and "action" in this objection. The first type is concerning motion, the second type is concerning motivation. Yes, volition is not uncaused- but it is free from physical cause and effect (i.e. free from determinism). It's cause is motivation or value judgement. And while the "act" of consciousness and judging values is an "action", it is not motion which is the type of action being discussed in the argument.

There is no proof that all actions require preceding actions OR volition.

"A thing cannot act but in accordance with its nature" -John Galt.

If a thing acts it is either because its nature is such that it acts of its own accord OR its nature is such that it only acts in reaction to other action.

To hold out possibility that there could be action at all apart from an entity with a nature sufficient to act on its own is to hold out the possibility that a thing (anything) could act against its nature-- that A could be non-A.

You are trying to enforce the rule of cause and effect universally with one exception - God. But we know existence exists. If the rule of C&E can have an exception, then by Occam's razor, it is much more likely that it is existence itself which is the exception to the rule of C&E, and not some arbitrary consciousness which defies all explanation but "somehow" violates C&E and creates it simultaneously.

There is no exception to the LAW of C&E. You simply misunderstand it. It says that "every effect must have a cause" NOT "every THING must have a cause". Additionally, I have quoted Rand's own popular wording of the Law of Causation which is "a thing can only act in accordance to its nature". I am not saying God is an exception to this. I am saying that to suppose that there is action apart from an entity with a nature sufficient to act on its own is to suppose that there is an exception to this. YOU are making the exception. Not me.

In point of fact, there is actual theoretical evidence to the contrary, in fact. Stephen Hawking has theorized that in the deep vacuums of space, *potential* energy coalesces into matter and anti-matter particles. (Remember, matter is energy in a transformed state). Potential energy is energy which can happen, but is not happening - like a wound up spring, or a rock held above the ground.

I'm no physicist, but this is what I mean when I warn about psycho-epistemologically holding perceptual data above logic: If Stephen Hawking thinks he has found a square circle, he is wrong.

An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature. If an entity in the deep vacuums of space acts as a result of the "potential energy", it will either act as a reaction from the action of something else or it will act of its own accord.

I will not abandon the Law of Causality in hopes that in the theoretical "deep vacuums of space" there is something going on with "anti-matter" (whatever that is) and "potential energy" resulting in something like a "wound up spring" which did not get wound up or "a rock held above the ground" with nothing holding it up.

If you and Hawking want to fantasize about finding perceptual data which you think violates the laws of logic (and the corollary law of causality), go ahead and continue on your safari for square circles. Just know that holding out hope that contradictions exist is tantamount to waging war against reality...and there are always consequences.

A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality. --Galt's Speech, FTNI. 126

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contradictions.html

Whatever Hawking eventually does find (if anything) regarding this theory- unless and until it is shown that it does not violate the law of causality-- unless and until it is integrated without contradiction- there is no reason to count it as worthy evidence of any sort in a philosophical discussion.

[bobgo]

My shortest and most concise argument for the existence of God is as follows:

-"An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature" -John Galt

-If there is not an entity whose nature gives it the ability to act of its own accord, then there is no action.

-There is action.

-Therefore there is an entity whose nature is such that it is able to act of its own accord.

-The ability of an entity to act of its own accord implies volition. Volition implies value. Value implies a mind.

-Therefore the entity whose nature is such that it is able to act of its own accord is a "person" having a mind, values, and volition.

Following this interesting thread, I decided to register because the topic is very important to me.

I am persuaded that debating on the existence of God it means to search for Truth.

And the search for Truth it’s the essence of the human being.

Nevertheless, this is not an easy task, because we have to get over a lot of difficulties. The trickiest of those it’s, to me, what appears as obvious.

When talking about God, we have to consider necessary concepts like Reality or Becoming. But if we take for granted the usual meaning of those concepts, our discussion on God is already compromised by the beginning, because of those not discussed meanings.

For example, it seems to me that the argument for the existence of God it takes for granted the usual meaning of Reality.

That is, that Reality is what is here, now, in the present. While what was in the past, but it is not here any more, it’s not real, because only it was. And what will be, but it is not yet here, it’s not real too, because it will be.

That is, real is only what is here, in the present.

By this universal point of view, who lives into the present is considered to be the Being. And that Being is affected by the Becoming.

Therefore, an action consists in to modify the Being through the Becoming.

Once accepted this point of view, we see the Being inexorably under attack by the Becoming. That may cause existential distress and nihilism, pushing us to find some remedy. An uncaused entity is a possible remedy.

I’d like to point out that, even if universally widespread, this interpretation of Reality does not have any absolute evidence. Whereas it raises a lot of doubts.

In fact, believing in this kind of Reality, we do not consider that Being and Becoming are indissolubly interlaced. Looking for the Being... it vanishes into the Becoming. And looking for the Becoming... we loose what really is Being.

So, the phantom Being that lives in the present is just an illusion. We really have evidence of only of events!

I’d like to introduce what is to me an other serious misunderstanding: the meaning of Existence.

That is, we often do not consider that “existing” means subject and objects. Because both are necessary for the Existence.

(Object is everything we can distinguish, everything we can isolate from all the remaining. That is physical things, own limbs too, but also mental things as perceptions, thoughts, feelings. Everything can be observed, things, that are just events...

While the subject is never distinguishable, because it appears to me as nothing)

Nevertheless, we are convinced that “objects” can exist apart from the subject! Although we do not have any evidence of that.

Believing in objects that exist themselves, without the need of a subject, we make a simplification. And from this point of view Existence consists in the sum of all the objects, and we are one of them.

Once done this simplification, we have completely forgotten one horn of the existential dilemma: subject vs object. Because the subject has been reduced to an object!

That is a very dangerous mistake, because no evidence is able to cancel one of the two horns: the subject.

I hope I have been able to explain somehow my mind.

Edited December 7, 2010 by bobgo

[Plasmatic]

Jacob just for the record, I would never use anything silly Steven Hawkin says in a philosophical discussion. In fact, there are few cosmologist and physicist I would say use concepts correctly.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Plasmatic

[dream_weaver]

Jacob just for the record I would never use anything silly Steven Hawkin says in a philosophical discussion. In fact there are few cosmologist and physicist I would say use concepts correctly.

Is that never use anthing silly Steven Hawkin says, or never use anything silly Steven Hawkin says. It it difficult to discern the difference in this usage.

edit: Sorry, I just had to ask.

Edited December 7, 2010 by dream_weaver

[Jacob86]

Jacob just for the record I would never use anything silly Steven Hawkin says in a philosophical discussion. In fact there are few cosmologist and physicist I would say use concepts correctly.

I appreciate that you seem to have your "philosophical head" on straight in that respect.

Do you have any response to my above argument?

[Jacob86]

Following this interesting thread, I decided to register because the topic is very important to me.

I am persuaded that debating on the existence of God it means to search for Truth.

And the search for Truth it’s the essence of the human being.

And this unrelenting desire to know what is true regardless of the topic is commendable.

Nevertheless, this is not an easy task, because we have to get over a lot of difficulties. The trickiest of those it’s, to me, what appears as obvious.

When talking about God, we have to consider necessary concepts like Reality or Becoming. But if we take for granted the usual meaning of those concepts, our discussion on God is already compromised by the beginning, because of those not discussed meanings.

For example, it seems to me that the argument for the existence of God it takes for granted the usual meaning of Reality.

That is, that Reality is what is here, now, in the present. While what was in the past, but it is not here any more, it’s not real, because only it was. And what will be, but it is not yet here, it’s not real too, because it will be.

That is, real is only what is here, in the present.

By this universal point of view, who lives into the present is considered to be the Being. And that Being is affected by the Becoming.

I'm not sure if I fully understand you here, but I think I would say that my definition of "Reality" is anything and everything which ever has or ever will be.

Therefore, an action consists in to modify the Being through the Becoming.

Once accepted this point of view, we see the Being inexorably under attack by the Becoming. That may cause existential distress and nihilism, pushing us to find some remedy. An uncaused entity is a possible remedy.

Are you suggesting something along the lines of Aristotle's potentiality and actuality?

I’d like to point out that, even if universally widespread, this interpretation of Reality does not have any absolute evidence. Whereas it raises a lot of doubts.

In fact, believing in this kind of Reality, we do not consider that Being and Becoming are indissolubly interlaced. Looking for the Being... it vanishes into the Becoming. And looking for the Becoming... we loose what really is Being.

So, the phantom Being that lives in the present is just an illusion. We really have evidence of only of events!

I’d like to introduce what is to me an other serious misunderstanding: the meaning of Existence.

That is, we often do not consider that “existing” means subject and objects. Because both are necessary for the Existence.

(Object is everything we can distinguish, everything we can isolate from all the remaining. That is physical things, own limbs too, but also mental things as perceptions, thoughts, feelings. Everything can be observed, things, that are just events...

While the subject is never distinguishable, because it appears to me as nothing)

Nevertheless, we are convinced that “objects” can exist apart from the subject! Although we do not have any evidence of that.

Believing in objects that exist themselves, without the need of a subject, we make a simplification. And from this point of view Existence consists in the sum of all the objects, and we are one of them.

Once done this simplification, we have completely forgotten one horn of the existential dilemma: subject vs object. Because the subject has been reduced to an object!

That is a very dangerous mistake, because no evidence is able to cancel one of the two horns: the subject.

I hope I have been able to explain somehow my mind.

To be honest, it's difficult for me to understand exactly what you are trying to communicate here. Perhaps you could elaborate more specifically?

[Greebo]

I'm not familiar with a "recursive fallacy". Could you explain what you mean by it and how you think I have committed it? (Unless the below is your unpacking of this).

Bad choice of words on my part - I should have said "infinite regression fallacy" - but for clarity, yes, if *everything* requires a cause, then existence requires a cause, and if existence requires a cause, then the CAUSE of existence requires a cause, in which case the Cause of the Cause of existence requires a cause, and then the cause of the cause of the cause of existence requires a cause.

You have switched types of "causes" and "action" in this objection. The first type is concerning motion, the second type is concerning motivation. Yes, volition is not uncaused- but it is free from physical cause and effect (i.e. free from determinism). It's cause is motivation or value judgement. And while the "act" of consciousness and judging values is an "action", it is not motion which is the type of action being discussed in the argument.

Thank you. You have just proved my point.

I'm demonstrating that where volitional action is concerned, cause and action are synonymous.

Volition alone *is* free from physical cause and effect. Volition *alone* is ineffective - impotent - powerless. Thinking alone does nothing. No volitional being can have ANY effect on anything other than itself purely by volition. In order to affect an entity that being must *act* upon that entity, and to act upon that entity requires a physical presence. My will does not cause words to appear on the screen. My will causes my fingers to move upon my keyboard.

So to act upon something, the actor must exist. To exist, there must be existence. Unless we are redefining God to be something other than the creator of existence, this ends the concept that God can exist prior to existence itself.

"A thing cannot act but in accordance with its nature" -John Galt.

If a thing acts it is either because its nature is such that it acts of its own accord OR its nature is such that it only acts in reaction to other action.

To hold out possibility that there could be action at all apart from an entity with a nature sufficient to act on its own is to hold out the possibility that a thing (anything) could act against its nature-- that A could be non-A.

You use this argument to suggest that existence requires a cause, but not to suggest that God requires a cause?

It is true that existence exists. Thus it is in the nature of existence to exist. Yes, it's recursive - you cannot prove or disprove ANY of the axioms without referring to them. That is what makes them axiomatic. Existence is metaphysically given.

There is no exception to the LAW of C&E. You simply misunderstand it. It says that "every effect must have a cause" NOT "every THING must have a cause". Additionally, I have quoted Rand's own popular wording of the Law of Causation which is "a thing can only act in accordance to its nature". I am not saying God is an exception to this. I am saying that to suppose that there is action apart from an entity with a nature sufficient to act on its own is to suppose that there is an exception to this. YOU are making the exception. Not me.

You are misquoting Rand. The quote in question is not relating to the law of causality, but identity.

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it.

- Galt's Speech

Identity - a thing is itself and cannot be not itself.

Causality - a thing cannot precede that which caused it.

I'm no physicist, but this is what I mean when I warn about psycho-epistemologically holding perceptual data above logic: If Stephen Hawking thinks he has found a square circle, he is wrong.

Theoretical evidence is *not* perceptual - or rather it is not first-order perceptual. The evidence remains theoretical because it has not been proven. It is work derived from perceptual data, of course. But that's rather off the point...

An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature. If an entity in the deep vacuums of space acts as a result of the "potential energy", it will either act as a reaction from the action of something else or it will act of its own accord.

A thought occurs to me - are you separating "energy" from "existence"? Are you of the mindset that only matter exists?

As I understand it, and I too am no physicist, the potential energy apparently in this case *is* the entity acting as a result of the presence of abundant potential energy in a vacuum.

Now if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then that energy, since it exists, must always have existed (A is A).

So perhaps energy is able to act of its own accord - after a fashion - but if so, is that a *choice* that the energy makes? Is it volitional, or simply spontaneous state changing between matter and a non-corporeal form of energy?

I will not abandon the Law of Causality in hopes that in the theoretical "deep vacuums of space" there is something going on with "anti-matter" (whatever that is) and "potential energy" resulting in something like a "wound up spring" which did not get wound up or "a rock held above the ground" with nothing holding it up.

Careful - you are getting awfully close to declaring a religious belief here... but in all seriousness I would encrouage you to seek out the two part show on Hawking's "Theory of Everything" which spells out the particular theoretical phenomenon much more clearly than I could. It's off the point of this topic, I only introduced it an aside.

If you and Hawking want to fantasize about finding perceptual data which you think violates the laws of logic (and the corollary law of causality), go ahead and continue on your safari for square circles. Just know that holding out hope that contradictions exist is tantamount to waging war against reality...and there are always consequences.

You are now drifting towards ad-hominem. Again. And whilst speaking from greater ignorance on the subject than I myself hold. If you have any desire of continuing this otherwise very enjoyable discussion, you will exercise better control in future. Final warning.

That said - I do not think the concept of spontaneous matter generation from potential energy violates either logic *or* causality anymore than the fact that existence exists can do so. I simply was pointing out that there's now a theory that could explain how "everything" came into being (material form) on its own. Maybe.

[Eiuol]

I'm no physicist, but this is what I mean when I warn about psycho-epistemologically holding perceptual data above logic:

AUGH NO ONE IS SAYING THAT PERCEPTUAL DATA IS ABOVE LOGIC!!!! Perception is the base of knowledge. THAT'S IT! To ACQUIRE any knowledge at all requires logic. "Logic exists" is not an axiom because to even DO logic requires CONTENT to do logic with. I imagine you'll point out that you can do logic on concepts, but answer first the question I asked about validating justice and god. I'm asking you to validate justice, because if you can do THAT, I can demonstrate how you CAN'T validate god and also what it means for a concept to be reducible to the perceptual level. Or at least you'll understand the Objectivist position a lot better.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Eiuol

[dream_weaver]

On perception, Binswanger in his lecture on ITOE's Abstraction from Abstraction makes a point that should be pertinent here.

Paraphrased, and a bit ad lib'd:

Perception does not need to see the door, then the wall, nor does it see the wall, then the door.

Perception does not require observation of the floor before the ceiling, nor the ceiling prior to the floor.

Perception does not separate the man lying on the grass from the grass, it merely transmits what it registers: the man and the grass, to the brain.

Perception merely registers what is there.

Out of sight, out of mind. That is the nature of the perceptual level. It is tied to occasion of sensation by object.

/Paraphrase.

This being said, the development of concepts is hierarchal. The object impinging on the sense organ: the sensations integrated into the brain into a percept: the percept moving through the (implicit) "entity" to the (implicit) "identity" and later the (implicit) "entity" to the (implicit) "unit" allows us to form our first concepts. Our first concepts are 'Concepts of Entity' for it is the percepts we first organize conceptually.

It is only much later that we are able to take the (implicit) "identity", and isolate it from the rest of our perceptual awareness and integrate it into a concept. Only after we have the concept 'identity' are we able to conceptually integrate it as fundamentally at the base of human knowledge as the "Law of Identity" which is the foundation of the "Concept of Method" known as logic.

We are not saying that perceptual data is above logic, we are saying that we derive logic from perceptual data.

Like the concepts of 'God' and 'justice', 'logic' cannot be directly seen, directly touched, rather are conceptually grasped.

This partial 'reduction' of logic to the perceptual - identifies the hierarchal (logical, not chronological) chain of concepts that are inter-related to our initial (implicit) first encounter with "identity" and allows us to validate the concept.

This method of 'hierarchal reduction' can also be performed with the concept of 'justice'.

This method of 'hierarchal reduction' has never been performed with the concept of 'God', which is why it is identified as an 'invalid concept'.

[bobgo]

To be honest, it's difficult for me to understand exactly what you are trying to communicate here. Perhaps you could elaborate more specifically?

I’ll try.

The God you talk about it seems to me the God of Spinoza (Deus sive Natura). However, Spinoza begins from his own not founded faith in God to explain the world, while, as far as I understand, you begin from the world to explain God.

That is, Spinoza postulates God and from that basis than he describes the world, while you postulates some general attributes of world and from those you derive God.

I think your approach is more correct than Spinoza was. Mostly in our times, where our empiric world appears so evident.

However, I am convinced that looking for God we need to go more deeply through the world.

It means to have faith on Truth. Without knowing anything about it.

Faith on Truth it’s the only support I can have in my search of God.

Only faith, because everything I may suppose to be true into the world has to be questioned.

Nothing can be taken for true because just it’s obvious, it must show its foundation before to be accepted as truth.

My reason has to watch everything appears to be real and to verify it, against any possible contradiction.

Doing so, being truly honest with myself, it will be possible to have to go through the Nihilism. But that is a risk we have to run, if we want be looking for God.

To show my position, I’d like to talk about subject and objects (Existence).

Anticipating that to me the “subject” is the most concrete reality which we may be certain of.

With “subject” I mean who is just conscious.

It’s conscious of what?

He is conscious of other.

I am, because I am conscious of other than myself.

Other is everything that is not myself. And it’s not myself because it may be there or not without its presence or absence throwing doubt upon myself.

Therefore, other is indeed everything! Physical things, own limbs, perceptions, thoughts, feelings... All those are not necessary to constitute myself.

I am not able to be conscious of lonely myself. Because myself appears to me as Nothing.

It’s always the other that allows me to be conscious of myself.

Therefore, the subject needs some other to be.

Together the subject and the other are the foundation of what we say: Existence.

The other is the raison d’être of the subject and the subject is the raison d’être of the other.

Both are always necessary for the Existence.

As a matter of fact, the other may also not appear as object, for the subject to be. Because it is sufficient the consciousness of other, even if it is indeterminate.

To move ahead, however, we need to distinguish the other into multiple objects.

The world then appears as the composition of multiple objects. It’s very enchanting, for its complexity and depth, but we never have to forget that it’s only half of reality, the other half is the subject!

If our purpose it’s to talk about the every day life, it’s correct to pay our attention to the objects. Because only with objects we have to do (objects are the result of the distinction made on the indeterminate other).

Whereas our purpose is thinking about God, objects are no more sufficient, because those arguments are not limited to the functioning of our world. Talking about God we need to pay attention to the fact that “Reality” is the union of subject and objects. And we don’t know any function or attribute about that!

Furthermore, insisting to interpret Reality only as objects, we go straight away to accept our self annihilation.

Because going into the objects, meant as the only reality, it will have as a result the complete negation of our free will.

We would not have free will any more because nothing in nature is free. Anything that happens in the world is due to a cause or, if believing on it, by change. Nothing to do with free will.

Free will has sense only if we consider the subject too. Subject that appears as Nothing.

Edited December 8, 2010 by bobgo

[Jacob86]

Bad choice of words on my part - I should have said "infinite regression fallacy" - but for clarity, yes, if *everything* requires a cause, then existence requires a cause, and if existence requires a cause, then the CAUSE of existence requires a cause, in which case the Cause of the Cause of existence requires a cause, and then the cause of the cause of the cause of existence requires a cause.

This is true. That is why I do not hold that *everTHING* has a cause. Only every effect..

Thank you. You have just proved my point.

I'm demonstrating that where volitional action is concerned, cause and action are synonymous.

Volition alone *is* free from physical cause and effect. Volition *alone* is ineffective - impotent - powerless. Thinking alone does nothing. No volitional being can have ANY effect on anything other than itself purely by volition. In order to affect an entity that being must *act* upon that entity, and to act upon that entity requires a physical presence. My will does not cause words to appear on the screen. My will causes my fingers to move upon my keyboard.

So to act upon something, the actor must exist. To exist, there must be existence. Unless we are redefining God to be something other than the creator of existence, this ends the concept that God can exist prior to existence itself.

You are missing a simple but important part of my conclusion (in the argument) and my position in general. The conclusion of the argument is that this volitional being (God) exists. I do not hold that God is the creator of "all existence". He exists- and He did not create Himself. I don't think any thinking Theist has ever suggested that God created "ALL of existence". The position of Theism is that God exists, and He created everything else which exists.

This in no way violates the axiom of existence. Neither does it suggest that He is "outside of existence".

Regarding your objection about "volition *alone*"- you are again forgetting the argument and reading into the conclusion false notions of God which you have gathered from the culture or elsewhere.

The argument proves that there must be a being which has a nature such that it can *act* of its own accord (volitionally). The argument says nothing about this being *only* volitional. And the argument clearly states that the necessity is for a being which *acts* of its own accord in order for *action* to exist at all.

So neither of the objections really holds.

You use this argument to suggest that existence requires a cause, but not to suggest that God requires a cause?

I didn't say anything about "existence" or "cause". I used this argument to "suggest" that in order for action to exist, there must be a volitional actor. It is true that this implies that other existents are caused by God and it is true that this implies that God does not require a cause.. but this is only a problem if we suppose that everyTHING must have a cause- and I do not hold to this.

It is true that existence exists. Thus it is in the nature of existence to exist. Yes, it's recursive - you cannot prove or disprove ANY of the axioms without referring to them. That is what makes them axiomatic. Existence is metaphysically given.

This would all be relevant if I were suggesting that this volitional actor were outside of existence (i.e. that He doesn't exist). But I have emphatically not said that. To speak of the necessity of God existing in no way questions/challenges/ or attempts to undercut that existence exists.

Existence exists. God is an ("The") existent. He exists. I don't see the problem.

A thought occurs to me - are you separating "energy" from "existence"? Are you of the mindset that only matter exists?

Nope. I understand that matter and energy exist.

As I understand it, and I too am no physicist, the potential energy apparently in this case *is* the entity acting as a result of the presence of abundant potential energy in a vacuum.

Now if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then that energy, since it exists, must always have existed (A is A).

So perhaps energy is able to act of its own accord - after a fashion - but if so, is that a *choice* that the energy makes? Is it volitional, or simply spontaneous state changing between matter and a non-corporeal form of energy?

I would have to look further into the exact definitions and distinctions regarding matter and energy in order to answer intelligently on this issue. It seems to me that energy is dependent upon entities such that it can't exist apart from an entity..

As far as I currently know regarding physics, the ideas of "anti-matter" and "potential energy which is not possessed by an entity" in a "vacuum" all sound like irrational science fiction. I don't mean this as a "religious" statement or as "ad hominem". I simply mean that it would not be surprising for non-philosophical geniuses in physics to come up with a philosophically ridiculous (i.e. illogical) theory; they have no proper philosophical foundations. BUT, I admit that I do not have a full enough grasp on their definitions in order to say that this is the case. I will attempt to study the issue if you or anyone else thinks that this (the potential of this theory being true) is a major flaw in my argument.

[Xall]

As far as I currently know regarding physics, the ideas of "anti-matter" and "potential energy which is not possessed by an entity" in a "vacuum" all sound like irrational science fiction.

As far as anti-matter goes, it's quite real (and expensive to make in labs) and it's essentially nothing more than reversely charged particles (so if the electron is charged negatively (-), than the antielectron (or positron) is charged positively (+); several million atoms of antihydrogen were produced, actually; unfortunately I'm not very well documented in electromagnetism to offer more details on the subject.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Xall

[Greebo]

This is true. That is why I do not hold that *everTHING* has a cause. Only every effect..

So do we. Existence exists. All of existence exists - and for existence to have a cause leads to regression, so the supported conclusion by the evidence we do know is that existence exists, all within existence has a cause.

You are missing a simple but important part of my conclusion (in the argument) and my position in general. The conclusion of the argument is that this volitional being (God) exists. I do not hold that God is the creator of "all existence". He exists- and He did not create Himself. I don't think any thinking Theist has ever suggested that God created "ALL of existence". The position of Theism is that God exists, and He created everything else which exists.

Very well - then let us examine the meaning of this.

Existence exists. Existence is ALL of existence. Nothing exists outside of existence.

So suppose God exists. He is thus part of existence. Since he creates the rest of existence, at this point God *is* existence. He is by definition the entire realm of existence and nothing exists outside of God.

God then creates the rest of existence. God creates *something*. God acts on *something* - which means he is acting on something outside of himself. How? If he *is* existence, he is the only thing to be acted upon. If he *is* existence, then he is subject to the rules of existence, and those rules which exist now must either have existed then, or the rules are not rules at all and there is no reason to existence at all. Thus he cannot act on something that is not there - and if he is all of existence, there can be nothing but God.

So - you propose a being that is not, in fact, subject to Identity - but under Identity must have one to act.

And then you claim:

This in no way violates the axiom of existence.

Neither does it suggest that He is "outside of existence".

True - only that the rest of existence does not exist until he creates it - which cannot happen because there is nothing outside of God.

Regarding your objection about "volition *alone*"- you are again forgetting the argument and reading into the conclusion false notions of God which you have gathered from the culture or elsewhere.

The argument proves that there must be a being which has a nature such that it can *act* of its own accord (volitionally). The argument says nothing about this being *only* volitional. And the argument clearly states that the necessity is for a being which *acts* of its own accord in order for *action* to exist at all.

But then act on what?

So neither of the objections really holds.

Your concept of proof is rather lax - your first assertion needs a lot of supporting material - but regardless - I acknowledge that it will be unlikely that I will ever disprove it nor that you will ever prove it. Ultimately the arbitrary can never be proved or disproved. That is why it is cognitively null. It cannot be integrated successfully with known knowledge. It must be discarded as irrelevant and not worth acting upon for to act deliberately upon the arbitrary is to act against reason and thus our own self interest.

I didn't say anything about "existence" or "cause". I used this argument to "suggest" that in order for action to exist, there must be a volitional actor. It is true that this implies that other existents are caused by God and it is true that this implies that God does not require a cause.. but this is only a problem if we suppose that everyTHING must have a cause- and I do not hold to this.

So we have two scenarios:

- Existence exists.

- Existence exists and is God.

Occams razor suggests that the latter is more likely to be eliminated as it is more complex.

[Jacob86]

So do we. Existence exists. All of existence exists - and for existence to have a cause leads to regression, so the supported conclusion by the evidence we do know is that existence exists, all within existence has a cause.

Very well - then let us examine the meaning of this.

Existence exists. Existence is ALL of existence. Nothing exists outside of existence.

So suppose God exists. He is thus part of existence. Since he creates the rest of existence, at this point God *is* existence. He is by definition the entire realm of existence and nothing exists outside of God.

God then creates the rest of existence. God creates *something*. God acts on *something* - which means he is acting on something outside of himself. How? If he *is* existence, he is the only thing to be acted upon. If he *is* existence, then he is subject to the rules of existence, and those rules which exist now must either have existed then, or the rules are not rules at all and there is no reason to existence at all. Thus he cannot act on something that is not there - and if he is all of existence, there can be nothing but God.

To "create" for God would not be to "act on something outside of Himself" (since, as you said, there would be nothing outside of Himself). Rather, it would be to bring previously non-existent things into existence. I believe this is where the phrase "ex nihilo" came from, meaning that He created everything else "out of nothing". NOT that existence sprang up "out of nothing", but that God created existents which were previously non-existent.

I do want to emphasize, though, that I VERY much agree that the "rules of existence" "apply" to God-- meaning (among many other things) that He could not be some irrational whim-worshiper which is what He is often thought to be.

So - you propose a being that is not, in fact, subject to Identity - but under Identity must have one to act.

The wording here is a little confusing (mostly the second half), so I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. But I can say that I do not propose that God does not have Identity. God is Himself.

True - only that the rest of existence does not exist until he creates it - which cannot happen because there is nothing outside of God.

I'm not sure how this follows, unless by "create" you mean "use already existent material to form other things". But, as I pointed out above, "creation" for God would mean "bringing something into existence" rather than "acting upon that which already exists".

Your concept of proof is rather lax - your first assertion needs a lot of supporting material - but regardless - I acknowledge that it will be unlikely that I will ever disprove it nor that you will ever prove it. Ultimately the arbitrary can never be proved or disproved. That is why it is cognitively null. It cannot be integrated successfully with known knowledge. It must be discarded as irrelevant and not worth acting upon for to act deliberately upon the arbitrary is to act against reason and thus our own self interest.

In what way do you mean that my first assertion needs a lot of supporting material? It seems to stand fairly simply on its own. Further "supporting material" may be necessary to answer objections, but so far all of the objections brought up seem to have been a result of misunderstanding what was being said in the argument. Therefore, what you are referring to as "supporting material", I would call "clarification for objectors".

Regarding the "arbitrary" issue: I hesitate to even answer this because I would rather not go too far down the "epistemological rabbit hole" again. Haha! But, I think your definition of "arbitrary" is rather.. well, arbitrary. However, if this (the fact that you consider the issue as arbitrary) is a major reason for not accepting the argument, I may be willing to go there.

So we have two scenarios:

- Existence exists.

- Existence exists and is God.

Occams razor suggests that the latter is more likely to be eliminated as it is more complex.

This seems rather simplistic...and it seems to forget the fact that I am arguing that the first position is illogical.

I do NOT mean that "Existence exists" is illogical. I mean that what you mean by "existence exists" is illogical.

Remember "Existence exists" does not necessarily refer to any particular existent, but rather to existence as such. The Atheist version of "existence exists" means that the physical universe (or some rough equivalent) is "existence as such" and that there is no existent which by nature can act of its own accord.

The Theist version of "existence exists" means that God is "existence as such" and that everything else was brought into existence by Him.

My argument for Theism is that the Atheist version is illogical. It is illogical because it supposes that action (not reactions) is possible apart from an entity sufficient to act of its own accord.

From my understanding of Occam's Razor, the "simpler" explanation is only to be accepted if it is not illogical. Otherwise many "simple" Altruists could claim Occam's Razor as their guiding light, based simply on the fact that the explanations of Egoism seem far more complex than simply accepting Altruism. The truth is that Egoism is FAR simpler (and more rational) but its appearance of complexity is a result of the many many many misunderstandings, objections, straw-men, etc.... I would argue that it is very similar with the issue of Theism.

Additionally, this issue of "existence as such" brings me to my very (as of yet) sloppy and truncated Ontological Argument. The fact that "existence exists" means that Existence as such cannot have any outside explanation for its existence. Therefore, there must be an existent for which there is no outside explanation. (That's all I've got of it so far...which is why I'm sticking with the "Prime Mover" one for now).