Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

"The reason why questioning "order" itself is invalid is because, were "order" anything other than it is -- were contradiction metaphysically possible -- then a person would not have any grounds upon which to question anything."

You're right in saying that contradiction is metaphysically impossible, but you haven't demonstrated that the question, "why is there order instead of disorder?" is invalid. The "invalidity" you mention presumes a contradiction, but the question "why is there order instead of disorder?" does not presume a contradiction, but merely presents a line for further enquiry -- unless presumptions have already been made that squelch that enquiry.

Most non-Objectivist atheists end up questioning "reason" itself, because they believe that the "order" we think we see is merely the result of biological determinism. I disagree with them, as I suspect you do as well, but I don't think the dead-end "the question is invalid" does much for any intelligent discourse and thoughtful enquiry as to "why" that order exists. What I have said here (a gazillion times, it seems like) is that the atheist and theist have come up with differing philosophical interpretations of the same observable data. The idea, so prevalent here, that all theists are knuckle-dragging idiots, just reeks of presumptions. It also ignores the history of science, which has Christians dominating science for hundreds of years.

I have met some pretty sharp minds over the years, and the top two were Christian -- this just plain grates with me, this attitude here that any and all religious people are stupid and irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The reason why questioning "order" itself is invalid is because, were "order" anything other than it is -- were contradiction metaphysically possible -- then a person would not have any grounds upon which to question anything."

It's late (/early) where I am right now, so I'm just going to type off-the-cuff; if anything comes across as strange or offensive, please chalk it up to my insomnia.

You're right in saying that contradiction is metaphysically impossible, but you haven't demonstrated that the question, "why is there order instead of disorder?" is invalid. The "invalidity" you mention presumes a contradiction, but the question "why is there order instead of disorder?" does not presume a contradiction, but merely presents a line for further enquiry -- unless presumptions have already been made that squelch that enquiry.

Forget the term "invalid" for a second. When we're agreed that "contradiction is metaphysically impossible," we're in complete agreement on this subject. When we reference "order," I mean nothing more than the recognition that "contradiction is metaphysically impossible," or to put it in another way, an "orderly universe" is a universe in which things can be relied upon to act according to their nature.

If our line of inquiry is "why couldn't there be disorder?" or "why order over disorder?", I must first assess the idea of a disordered universe, which I take to mean: "a universe in which contradiction is metaphysically possible," where things will act contrary to their very nature. It isn't that the question "presumes a contradiction," of itself, but that disorder does when we take it under consideration. A disordered universe would of necessity be a universe in which logic and reason would not apply (due to the existence of metaphysical contradictions); there is no way for me to rationally assess such a thing -- or to even imagine it, which would require me to imagine items such as "square circles," or effects which precede their causes. And it is this inability to rationally assess the very thing I'm meant to deliberate upon which leads me to conclude that the question is "invalid." I just can't make sense of it, nor do I believe that sense can be made.

Please take me at my word that beyond this conclusion that I've reached (and which you're invited to challenge if you think I've erred), I've no interest in "squelching" anything. Inquiry is an excellent thing. It isn't anti-inquiry that I've reached this conclusion (and as I hope is evidenced by the fact that I'm sitting here, typing this), but rather at the end of my process of inquiry. Does that make any sense?

What I have said here (a gazillion times, it seems like) is that the atheist and theist have come up with differing philosophical interpretations of the same observable data. The idea, so prevalent here, that all theists are knuckle-dragging idiots, just reeks of presumptions. It also ignores the history of science, which has Christians dominating science for hundreds of years.

I have met some pretty sharp minds over the years, and the top two were Christian -- this just plain grates with me, this attitude here that any and all religious people are stupid and irrational.

Well, I can't speak for, let alone defend every Objectivist you've heard from. I can barely defend myself at times! But I have no belief that theists are idiots, or stupid, or etc. I've known many very intelligent Christians -- and folks from various other religions -- and have befriended quite a few.

That said, where religion is concerned, I do believe that they are wrong. And irrational? In their faith, yes. Of course you're right that this is a matter of "differing philosophical interpretations"; Objectivism is a philosophy after all, so we should expect the points of divergence with various other philosophies to be precisely that. This has nothing to do with any particular animosity towards individual theists, or pretending as though Christians haven't made contributions to science (though I feel compelled to mention that this is not necessarily to the credit of Christianity, itself). I'm open to the idea of intelligent, well-meaning, valuable-as-human-being theists... but at the same time, I must continue to disagree with them when I believe that they're wrong, and identify their irreason as I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Forget the term "invalid" for a second. When we're agreed that "contradiction is metaphysically impossible," we're in complete agreement on this subject.

Yes, we are in agreement, but only so far as we can agree as to what is metaphysically possible. One of the usual tropes sent out by the faithful unfaithful is the usual trash that, hey, can God lift a stone too hard for Him to lift? This is supposed to reduce Christians to blubbering, but actually Catholic Christians have an answer to thst challenge

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...