Argument for the existence of God

[Xall]

I'm not familiar with Objectivism. I came here looking for “forum nihilism” on google.

You should familiarize yourself with the Forum Rules however, bobgo, if you intend to tackle the issue as such.

[Greebo]

What has been proven is that most people are unaware of the invalid concepts that underly the mythical infinite density monster called black holes. What has been observed can be explained with plasma physics without such nonsense. There is also mathematical problems at the heart of black hole model.

I'm not interested in debating this at the moment. If your interested in checking these premises I can send you info for your own research

No debate necessary - it's completely off the topic, and the premises in question have no real connection to my life at this time. As I said - one can insert *any* formerly theoretically plausible and now confirmed concept as an example of the validation of concept process.

[bobgo]

Interesting. Your earlier statement certainly sounded as though you were stating a universal absolute.

Is English not your first language? Because your posts are coming across to me as jumbled nonsense, and yet within them is the hint of a potentially powerfully sharp mind. I'm having trouble deciding if it's a language problem or a rationality problem.

English is not my first language, I’m Italian. May be it's because of my country that I'm feeling so much the hints of nihilism...

It's difficult to me to explain the risk we are facing, and a lot more trying to do that in English, but I have to.

[bobgo]

You should familiarize yourself with the Forum Rules however, bobgo, if you intend to tackle the issue as such.

I read the Forum Rules before my first post. Did I miss anything?

[Jacob86]

Ok, I think I understand the collective objections against my formation of the concept in question (i.e. the ability of God to bring into existence that which was not already existent).

It seems that everyone is basically saying "there is no reason to believe that such a concept is valid". Is this correct?

I would like briefly explain my "Epistemological Court-Room" and see where exactly there are any disagreements (if any).

In my Epistemological Court Room, there are a few different categories:

1) A claim which is illogical/self-contradictory: Such a claim is not only "dismissed", but is ruled against- meaning that no further evidence should be pursued in order to back up the claim since the claim can not ever possibly be true.

2) A claim which is "logical" (non-contradictory) but for which there is no reason (whether logical or empirical) to believe that it is true: I believe this is what you are calling "arbitrary". Such a claim is dismissed and the pursuit of evidence is highly discouraged as a massive waste of time. This seems to be where the "leprechauns in the closet" and "unicorns", etc.. belong.

3) A claim which is logical (non-contradictory) but for which there is reason (whether logical or empirical or both) to believe that it could be true: I believe this is what you are calling "plausible". The amount of supporting reason for the claim could be great or small and the pursuit of further evidence should be based on the degree of probability (which is determined by the amount of supporting reason).

To make sure I understand everyone accurately:

1) Would anyone like to make any important changes to the categories above? Or does this accurately represent your Epistemological Court Room as well??

2) It seems that you are suggesting that my claims fit into the 2nd category as logically possible but with no reason to believe that they could be valid...and therefore arbitrary. Is this correct?

[Greebo]

It seems that everyone is basically saying "there is no reason to believe that such a concept is valid". Is this correct?

Correct.

1) A claim which is illogical/self-contradictory: Such a claim is not only "dismissed", but is ruled against- meaning that no further evidence should be pursued in order to back up the claim since the claim can not ever possibly be true.

With the addition of "/contradicts known evidence" to the scope of said claim, agreed.

2) A claim which is "logical" (non-contradictory) but for which there is no reason (whether logical or empirical) to believe that it is true: I believe this is what you are calling "arbitrary". Such a claim is dismissed and the pursuit of evidence is highly discouraged as a massive waste of time. This seems to be where the "leprechauns in the closet" and "unicorns", etc.. belong.

Precisely.

3) A claim which is logical (non-contradictory) but for which there is reason (whether logical or empirical or both) to believe that it could be true: I believe this is what you are calling "plausible". The amount of supporting reason for the claim could be great or small and the pursuit of further evidence should be based on the degree of probability (which is determined by the amount of supporting reason).

Change the first "but" to "and" and you have a winner.

To make sure I understand everyone accurately:

1) Would anyone like to make any important changes to the categories above? Or does this accurately represent your Epistemological Court Room as well??

2) It seems that you are suggesting that my claims fit into the 2nd category as logically possible but with no reason to believe that they could be valid...and therefore arbitrary. Is this correct?

#1) Minor ones noted above, otherwise yes, a good representation.

#2) That is correct.

[Jacob86]

Correct.

With the addition of "/contradicts known evidence" to the scope of said claim, agreed.

Precisely.

Change the first "but" to "and" and you have a winner.

Yes. The "but" was meant to contrast the 3rd category with the 2nd. Sorry- I didn't make that very clear.

#1) Minor ones noted above, otherwise yes, a good representation.

#2) That is correct.

Ok. And could you tell me specifically which of my claims you would consider to be in the "arbitrary" category?

-That there is a God?

-That God could "create" in the way that I mean it?

And could you explain why any of the reasons which I have given for these claims is insufficient to bring it out of the "arbitrary" category?? Remember; I'm not here saying "Hey, it be cool to think about there being a God!". I am making an argument (spelling out reasons) to believe that there is a God...

[Eiuol]

And could you explain why any of the reasons which I have given for these claims is insufficient to bring it out of the "arbitrary" category?? Remember; I'm not here saying "Hey, it be cool to think about there being a God!". I am making an argument (spelling out reasons) to believe that there is a God...

It's not so much that you have reasons, but there is no evidence to suggest that those reasons are based on something connected with reality. Connected indirectly to something perceivable. That logical necessity may be based on a contradiction that needs to be evaluated. How can you ever be sure that you've not begun with a contradiction at the outset? Perception allows that certainty, because what you see can *only* be what you see. A is A; A can't be non-A. That's how perception is the base of knowledge. Your claims are arbitrary because all I've seen you argue about is logical necessity detached from any evidence. Your reasons are not based on anything else. I can't argue the existence of evil closet leprechauns, even if I claim my missing clothes from my closet necessitate their existence.

[Jacob86]

It's not so much that you have reasons, but there is no evidence to suggest that those reasons are based on something connected with reality. Connected indirectly to something perceivable. That logical necessity may be based on a contradiction that needs to be evaluated. How can you ever be sure that you've not begun with a contradiction at the outset? Perception allows that certainty, because what you see can *only* be what you see. A is A; A can't be non-A. That's how perception is the base of knowledge. Your claims are arbitrary because all I've seen you argue about is logical necessity detached from any evidence. Your reasons are not based on anything else. I can't argue the existence of evil closet leprechauns, even if I claim my missing clothes from my closet necessitate their existence.

My "connection with reality" is that there is action.

If you think that my logical argument from this is similar to your argument for leprechauns based upon missing clothes, please point out my logical fallacies or the point at which my logical argument breaks down.

Remember, I am claiming that your view (Atheism) fits in the FIRST category (illogical/self-contradictory)... unless you have a valid objection against my argument, you are the one with invalidated beliefs.

I am saying "Atheism is illogical, and therefore Theism must be accepted- and Theism implies the need for a new concept of creation".

It seems the only objection to my argument is "but theres no empirical reason to accept this new concept" while blanking out the fact that I am arguing that Atheism is irrational.

This is NOT a very strong objection by any means. It may be a difficulty in understanding the implications of my position- but unless it deals with the more foundational argument, it is not a valid objection against my position.

[Dante]

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.

I would take issue with your second dashed point, your first real statement in your argument. This assumes the impossibility of an infinite chain of cause and effect, and I'm not convinced that assumption is warranted. I don't see the necessity of an origin point for action, when we all agree that existence itself doesn't have an origin point (no one here is arguing that either God or the universe just popped into existence). Saying that the universe has always existed is the same as saying that some amount of energy has always existed, which would lead one to conclude that action has simply always existed as well.

[Greebo]

Remember, I am claiming that your view (Atheism) fits in the FIRST category (illogical/self-contradictory)... unless you have a valid objection against my argument, you are the one with invalidated beliefs.

Remember that you are free to make any claims you wish, and it is ultimately up to you to validate your claims and our claims to your satisfaction.

We have already raised objections to your motion argument with which you have not adequately dealt to our satisfaction. Dante has restated them quite elegantly. Your motion argument leads to the same contradictory position that the cause and effect argument leads to.

To say existence requires a creator because everything has to start somewhere, an argument you've already stated wasn't supportable, is no different than to say motion requires a mover because every motion has to start somewhere. The argument leads to several contradictions which have already been spelled out.

[Jacob86]

Remember that you are free to make any claims you wish, and it is ultimately up to you to validate your claims and our claims to your satisfaction.

We have already raised objections to your motion argument with which you have not adequately dealt to our satisfaction. Dante has restated them quite elegantly. Your motion argument leads to the same contradictory position that the cause and effect argument leads to.

To say existence requires a creator because everything has to start somewhere, an argument you've already stated wasn't supportable, is no different than to say motion requires a mover because every motion has to start somewhere. The argument leads to several contradictions which have already been spelled out.

Ok. So, you problem with my position is NOT that it is arbitrary (that I am making a claim with NO supporting reason to believe that the claim is valid). Rather, your problem with my position is that you do not agree with my reasoning for the claim. HUGE difference. And I would really appreciate it if everyone would try to grasp the difference.

IF I make a claim without any supporting reasons for the claim, by all means denounce it as "arbitrary" and compare it to "leprechauns and unicorns".

However, if I make a claim with supporting reasons but you disagree with my reasoning, please point out exactly where you disagree with the reasoning RATHER than saying "it's arbitrary" as if my position has no reasoning behind it.

It seems that you are saying here that your objections to my reasoning are summed up in Dante's recent post, so I will reply to him rather than both in order to avoid redundancy.

[Greebo]

Bearing in mind that a statement logically derived from arbitrary premises is thus an arbitrary statement, I have already explained the reason your claim is arbitrary in prior posts.

[Jacob86]

I would take issue with your second dashed point, your first real statement in your argument.

Ok. As a recap, the beginning of the argument is a quote from Galt:

"an entity cannot act but in accordance with its nature"

My conclusion from that is "if there is action there must be an entity which by nature can act of its own accord (volitionally)".

This is what you are taking issue with. But I would like for you to show how disagreeing with this does not contradict the statement made by Galt.

An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature. If there is action, there is an entity which by nature can act of its own accord. If such an entity does not exist, there could be no action. It seems that you must either reject Galts statement here OR you must reject that there is action. OR, you must demonstrate how there could be any action at all apart from an entity which by nature can act (not REact, but ACT). All three options seem rather impossible and illogical.

Its pretty straight forward.

This assumes the impossibility of an infinite chain of cause and effect, and I'm not convinced that assumption is warranted.

It actually doesn't even bring up the issue of infinity (on purpose). It doesn't need to. Bringing up the "possibility" of an infinite chain into the past is only an attempt to push the problem away. However, for your sake, I will demonstrate quickly why the hope in an "infinite chain" is illogical.

The idea of an "infinite chain" in this case is usually called an "infinite regress". A regress is a series going back into the past. An infinite regress is supposed to refer to a series going back into the past forever. A series, though, must have a beginning. An "infinite series" would have no beginning. If a series does not begin, then it does not exist. Therefore an "infinite regress" is a "series which does not exist". To say that an infinite regress exists is to say that a non-existent series exists. It is a contradiction.

This is taken from my recent post in the "Infinite Quantity" thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20058&pid=266934&st=120&#entry266934

I don't see the necessity of an origin point for action, when we all agree that existence itself doesn't have an origin point (no one here is arguing that either God or the universe just popped into existence). Saying that the universe has always existed is the same as saying that some amount of energy has always existed, which would lead one to conclude that action has simply always existed as well.

Yes but "action" necessarily implies an "actor"/entity. If there is not an entity with a sufficient nature to explain this action and energy, then there would be no action or energy.

[Eiuol]

Ok. So, you problem with my position is NOT that it is arbitrary (that I am making a claim with NO supporting reason to believe that the claim is valid). Rather, your problem with my position is that you do not agree with my reasoning for the claim. HUGE difference. And I would really appreciate it if everyone would try to grasp the difference.

IF I make a claim without any supporting reasons for the claim, by all means denounce it as "arbitrary" and compare it to "leprechauns and unicorns".

I know you're addressing Greebo, but you're missing the point. I attempted to point out that you need to have some valid premise on which to base your conclusions. Your premise is that there is action. Well, that part is fine. However, I pointed out that there are parts in your reasoning which are disconnected from reality. I explained how there may be a reason for believing that leprechauns live in my closet, but there is NOTHING in reality - except my imagination - to indicate their existence. Can you explain WHY my claim that leprechauns live in my closet is arbitrary, despite the fact I have a reason to believe it? Seriously, explain why. I'm supposing you agree that such a claim is arbitrary. The concept of god cannot be validated, if you try to validate god, you won't be able to, that's why god is arbitrary. I did point out problems in your argument, and you didn't say how I was wrong about your argument if I misrepresented it.

I'm trying to get you to understand what it means to validate a concept, a process which is more than making sure you are logically consistent.

[Jacob86]

Bearing in mind that a statement logically derived from arbitrary premises is thus an arbitrary statement, I have already explained the reason your claim is arbitrary in prior posts.

You submitted objections to parts of my reasoning which I responded to. Then, everyone focused on the invalidity of my concept of "creation" (which was dependent upon prior premises). My point is that if there is a disagreement with my premises/reasoning, then THAT is what needs to be addressed and debated...rather than the validity of a small piece of my conclusion (the concept of creation).

[Greebo]

Ok. As a recap, the beginning of the argument is a quote from Galt:

"an entity cannot act but in accordance with its nature"

You do not need to keep repeating that A is A - it doesn't add any validity to the second statement, and we all take A is A as a given anyway.

My conclusion from that is "if there is action there must be an entity which by nature can act of its own accord (volitionally)".

Prove it.

This is what you are taking issue with. But I would like for you to show how disagreeing with this does not contradict the statement made by Galt.

The statement has nothing specific to do with Identity. The statement is that the existence of action requires a volitional being.

Electrons are entities. They move on their own accord, but they are not volitional.

Ergo, action does not require a volitional being.

[Greebo]

Post 610 - mine:

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

[dream_weaver]

You submitted objections to parts of my reasoning which I responded to. Then, everyone focused on the invalidity of my concept of "creation" (which was dependent upon prior premises). My point is that if there is a disagreement with my premises/reasoning, then THAT is what needs to be addressed and debated...rather than the validity of a small piece of my conclusion (the concept of creation).

I believe 'creation' was identified as having been 'stolen'.

[Jacob86]

I know you're addressing Greebo, but you're missing the point. I attempted to point out that you need to have some valid premise on which to base your conclusions. Your premise is that there is action. Well, that part is fine. However, I pointed out that there are parts in your reasoning which are disconnected from reality. I explained how there may be a reason for believing that leprechauns live in my closet, but there is NOTHING in reality - except my imagination - to indicate their existence. Can you explain WHY my claim that leprechauns live in my closet is arbitrary, despite the fact I have a reason to believe it? Seriously, explain why. I'm supposing you agree that such a claim is arbitrary. The concept of god cannot be validated, if you try to validate god, you won't be able to, that's why god is arbitrary. I did point out problems in your argument, and you didn't say how I was wrong about your argument if I misrepresented it.

I'm trying to get you to understand what it means to validate a concept, a process which is more than making sure you are logically consistent.

I don't recall any objections against my reasoning/premises on your part other than the assertion that my claims are "arbitrary". Concerning the leprechauns, do you have any reason at all to believe that it is leprechauns stealing your clothes rather than you simply losing/misplacing them?? It seems in addition to the leprechauns being "possible" there are a wide variety of other possibilities which are much more plausible.

Concerning my argument for God, if you see other possible explanations which are more plausible, please submit them. But remember, I am arguing that any and all other options are NOT possible because they are illogical.

You are missing the force of my argument. I am not suggesting God as an explanation the ways you are suggesting leprechauns. I am arguing that any position which denies God must be illogical/ inconsistent/ irrational...and therefore automatically false. SO, if you see a problem in my reasoning, that is what needs to be addressed.

[Jacob86]

Electrons are entities. They move on their own accord, but they are not volitional.

Ergo, action does not require a volitional being.

Are you suggesting the the action of electrons is not in any way a reaction to other particles? That the actions of electrons are entirely un-influenced by the other actions in the rest of reality?

[Jacob86]

Post 610 - mine:

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

An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature. If an entity acts it is either volitionally (of its own accord) or it is as a reaction to prior action. If you wish to submit a third possibility, then please do so. But make sure that this possibility is not "arbitrary".

[Greebo]

Are you suggesting the the action of electrons is not in any way a reaction to other particles? That the actions of electrons are entirely un-influenced by the other actions in the rest of reality?

Are you suggesting that the reaction to those other particles is volitional?

[Eiuol]

I don't recall any objections against my reasoning/premises on your part other than the assertion that my claims are "arbitrary". Concerning the leprechauns, do you have any reason at all to believe that it is leprechauns stealing your clothes rather than you simply losing/misplacing them?? It seems in addition to the leprechauns being "possible" there are a wide variety of other possibilities which are much more plausible.

So my claim is merely less plausible than me misplacing my clothing? The claim is not arbitrary? By arbitrary we don't mean the "least plausible," by arbitrary we mean that such a claim has no connection with reality, and not able to be reduced to the perceptual level. If you agree that my leprechaun claim is arbitrary, *please* explain why it is arbitrary. Certainly "I can't see them!" isn't a valid reason for that; I can't see god either.

[Greebo]

An entity cannot act but in accordance to its nature.

And again - you do not need to keep repeating that A is A. This is not a question of identity.

If an entity acts it is either volitionally (of its own accord) or it is as a reaction to prior action. If you wish to submit a third possibility, then please do so. But make sure that this possibility is not "arbitrary".

Repetition is not proof.

You are stating that the existence of action ultimately requires a volitional being. This is no different than saying that the existence of matter ultimately requires a creator.