Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In the case of your full argument, the reification is, "the cause created physical entities". The concepts of cause/effect/event all involve the interaction of pre-existing entities, so by trying to assert a cause/event occurring apart from entities, you are dropping the context in which those concepts are valid.

I have not stated, nor do I hold that a cause creates physical entities. I do hold that a cause "causes something to happen"- or that a cause causes entities to act/change in certain ways which would not have happened apart from the cause. I am not asserting any cause or event apart from entities. I am asserting that an event(any change of a particular entity) must be explained either wholly by the nature of the entity itself (which would require self-determination in the entity) or partially by an other event involving other entities. That is what I mean when I talk about cause and effect- and that's what I assumed everyone else means when they use those words. lol.

I understand and fully agree that causation necessarily involves the nature of the entity(ies) involved- that drinking water and cyanide have drastically different effects because water and cyanide have drastically different natures. I get that. But, I don't think you get that apart from interaction of other entities, there would be no alteration/event/effect- regardless of the nature of the entity in question. If I hadn't DRANK the water/cyanide, there would be no change to compare the two! Change in an entity is referred to as an effect and the reason for the change is referred to as the cause- the type of effect which occurs as a result of the cause is necessarily influenced by the natures of the entity acting as cause and the entity which is the effect- but the nature in and of itself is not sufficient reason for the effect. The nature of cyanide is not a sufficient reason for explaining my death. I must DRINK it.

I really hope this clears up this discussion on cause and effect- I have no idea why it needed to be so long and painful. lol. I've simply been trying to use the terms in the way they are commonly used and assuming that we all understood what was meant by them.

What is this concept called a "state of affair"? Can you identify the referents of such a concept? Until then, I cannot really respond to what you are referring to.

By "state of affairs" I mean "situation" or any given truth about one or more entities and their relationships to others at a particular point in time. The fact that I am typing right now is a "state of affairs". I suppose you could call it a "fact".

A memory of a past interaction of physical entities exists in the mind as an abstract "recording". The past interaction no longer exists - the entities involved have since interacted with and been modified by other entities. So there is no basis for your constraint on the number of past interactions of physical entities.

But the past interaction DID occur. It is a fact. That fact is not negated by the passage of time. 2,000 years from now it will still be true that "Jacob86 is typing on his computer at Starbucks at 7:51pm on November 5th, 2010 AD". I'm trying to stress that the passage of time does not negate the reality of past events and therefore past events (as part of reality as a whole) cannot be excluded when discussing the number of interactions of physical entities in reality. In fact, doesn't the expression "number of interactions of physical entities" IMPLY the passage of time? How could you count the number of interactions of any particular physical entity if you excluded every interaction which was not CURRENTLY occurring!?

Evidence presupposes the laws of logic. Evidence would not be possible without logic.

Nothing presupposes the existence of god.

However, many extremely important things are implicit in the Laws of Logic applied to reality (The Law of Cause and Effect, Human Rights, The "Good", etc..) all of which do not have empirical scientific proof and all of which are necessities in a rational world view. I would contend that God is one of those important, non-empirical, necessities- necessitated by Logic (as is being attempted to be shown here). Aristotle also seemed to hold to this idea. I do not think I am in bad company. The fact that 99% of the world's Theists have had completely irrational views in their Theism does not bother me any more than the fact that seemingly 99% of professing capitalists have completely irrational views about their Capitalism. I am still a proud Capitalist because I am after TRUTH for Truth's sake, not the majority position on an issue.

In fact to the contrary, knowledge/logic/reason all presuppose that existence exists, and that those things which exist have specific identities. God - i.e. a consciousness conscious only of itself, existing in non-existence, acting apart from time - goes against all of knowledge and logic. The existence of God would mean that contradictions are possible, and therefore knowledge/logic is impossible.

PLEASE read my post on the previous page with my response to common objections (which are all based on straw men). I do not hold that God is solely Consciousness conscious only of His own Consciousness. That is a straw man. I do not hold that God exists in non-existence. Another straw man. I do not hold that He acted apart from time. Another straw man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not asserting any cause or event apart from entities.

This itself is an assertion. Now show it to be true. You are asserting that there was a moment when no entities existed, and then a cause caused entities to exist. If that is not correct, which part is not correct, and why?

In fact, doesn't the expression "number of interactions of physical entities" IMPLY the passage of time? How could you count the number of interactions of any particular physical entity if you excluded every interaction which was not CURRENTLY occurring!?

What is the point of the question? You used capitals and an exclamation, so I'm assuming it is important to your argument, however I've read it several times and don't see anything important about it. How would I go about counting all of the past interactions of an entity? And how is my ability/inability to perform such a tally relevant to the assertion that there is a limit on the number of past interactions of entities?

I will again ask: What basis is there for a limit on the number of past interactions of entities?

However, many extremely important things are implicit in the Laws of Logic applied to reality (The Law of Cause and Effect, Human Rights, The "Good", etc..) all of which do not have empirical scientific proof and all of which are necessities in a rational world view.

Yes, you cannot hold a human right in your hand. But it can be objectively discovered by examination of reality and the nature of man. That is the case with all valid concepts - they can all be traced back to through the conceptual hierarchy to observation. The concept of God is invalid, as it is not only divorced from the conceptual hierarchy, but it contradicts the concepts in that hierarchy.

I do not hold that God is solely Consciousness conscious only of His own Consciousness. That is a straw man. I do not hold that God exists in non-existence. Another straw man. I do not hold that He acted apart from time. Another straw man.

A creator-consciousness, in an existence without physical form, performing action despite having no physical form by which to enable action - these are all contradictions. Existence implies entities; consciousness implies observation of entities; time implies the motion of entities. To use these terms divorced from those implications is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.

If I have not accurately described your notion of "God" - it doesn't matter. I'm cutting off your argument before it can even get started, by requiring that words actually be used properly, and refer to concepts that can be connected back to reality.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quick comments after reading your notion of "God" on the previous page:

God is existence

So? What is the point in replacing one word with another? What necessitates any of this?

God is conscious

You are asserting a consciousness apart from a brain, and thus divorcing the concept from its referents - stealing the concept again.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

**I apologize in advance: After about TEN reviews of this posting, it was still telling me that I had a mis-matching number of opening and closing quotations. I never found them. I finally gave up and put your quotations in a different font. I"m not sure how it will turn out- hopefully it will not be too confusing.

"This itself is an assertion. Now show it to be true. You are asserting that there was a moment when no entities existed, and then a cause caused entities to exist. If that is not correct, which part is not correct, and why?"

I am asserting that there was a time when only one Being existed (God) and that He chose to create all other existents which are contingent and mutable.

"What is the point of the question? You used capitals and an exclamation, so I'm assuming it is important to your argument, however I've read it several times and don't see anything important about it. How would I go about counting all of the past interactions of an entity? And how is my ability/inability to perform such a tally relevant to the assertion that there is a limit on the number of past interactions of entities?"

You seemed to imply (correct me if I'm wrong) that past events could not be considered as "things to be counted" (since they do not currently exist) and therefore the impossibility of an actual infinite could not refer to them. Perhaps I should ask what exactly your position is for clarification.

Do you hold "that an actual infinity is impossible, but that past events are not actual and therefore cannot be considered to comprise an actual infinity"? I am under the impression that this is your position.

OR, do you hold that "an actual infinity is possible, whether we are talking about past events or not"?

" I will again ask: What basis is there for a limit on the number of past interactions of entities "

The basis is 1)the impossibility of an actual infinity in reality and 2)The fact that past events are actually parts of reality.

Or, to put in laymen's terms: "If there was never a beginning (a first event), there would never be a middle (subsequent events)."

"The concept of God is invalid, as it is not only divorced from the conceptual hierarchy, but it contradicts the concepts in that hierarchy."

How so?

"A creator-consciousness, in an existence without physical form, performing action despite having no physical form by which to enable action - these are all contradictions."

Being conscious of that which is not physical is not a contradiction. Being conscious of nothing is. I know most Objectivists think that "God" is SOLELY Consciousness and therefore had nothing to be conscious of before creation ("Consciousness which is conscious only of itself is a contradiction"). However, Theism holds that God EXISTS and that He was conscious of His EXISTENCE-not solely His Consciousness. This is no more irrational than Me being conscious of my own existence- Unless (as I stated previously), you would bar the individual the ability to be conscious of his own existence which smacks heavily of Altruism.

" Existence implies entities; "

God is an entity which exists before and above all other entities. He is Existence as such. Objectivists know that because "Existence Exists", Existence must therefore be eternal- but Existence is a property belonging to entities. Therefore if Existence is eternal, some entity must be eternal. (This isn't necessarily my primary proof for the existence of God, but it should be helpful to help you understand what I am and am not saying).

" consciousness implies observation of entities; "

(See above). Must it imply observation of OTHER entities? Am I only able to be conscious of all entities except myself?? Must God be incapable of being aware of His own existence?

" time implies the motion of entities."

Agreed. And I believe time began the moment that God created an other entity and set it in motion. You seem to believe that entities have always been in motion with no beginning and no sufficient reason for said motion.

" To use these terms divorced from those implications is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept"

Again, agreed. Have I actually used these terms divorced from those implications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quick comments after reading your notion of "God" on the previous page:

So? What is the point in replacing one word with another? What necessitates any of this?

You are asserting a consciousness apart from a brain, and thus divorcing the concept from its referents - stealing the concept again.

The point was to dismantle the objection which assumed that I hold the idea that God exists apart from existence. Many have assumed that I believe that God exists apart from existence (that He created ALL existence)- which is false. I was correcting them. In short, I was burning a straw man- not necessarily putting forth a "proof".

Consciousness does not belong to "brain" but to "mind". Just because we don't experience "mind" apart from "brain" does not mean that there is not a distinction. In fact, there must be in order for any concept of our minds to be valid. Furthermore, just because we do not experience "mind" apart from "brain" does not mean that it is impossible for a "mind" to exist apart from the physical material of a brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness does not belong to "brain" but to "mind". Just because we don't experience "mind" apart from "brain" does not mean that there is not a distinction. In fact, there must be in order for any concept of our minds to be valid. Furthermore, just because we do not experience "mind" apart from "brain" does not mean that it is impossible for a "mind" to exist apart from the physical material of a brain.

It does mean that asserting there is one[a mind apart from an entity] without evidence is arbitrary and divorced from the context "mind" was formed in, i.e. as an attribute of an entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does mean that asserting there is one[a mind apart from an entity] without evidence is arbitrary and divorced from the context "mind" was formed in, i.e. as an attribute of an entity.

You are using "entity" and "a physical brain" interchangeably. I am not. I firmly believe that God's mind is contained within His being/"entity". This does not necessitate that God have a physical brain.

If you still insist that evidence is needed to prove that a mind exists apart from a physical brain, I would ask what sort of evidence would you accept?

Keep in mind that I am responding to an objection which says "It is impossible for a consciousness to exist without a physical brain". The burden of proof in this case is on the other foot. It would suffice for me to say "prove it" to you. The only ammunition you have is that we have never experienced it empirically- which is hardly a rock-solid case.

However, I am being generous and attempting to help you understand in what sense it IS possible by explaining that there is a necessary difference in US between mind and physical brain- and that therefore it is not at all inconceivable that a mind could exist without a physical brain in an non-physical entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some helpful quotes on the impossibility of an actual infinity in reality:

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

"There is a use of [the concept] “infinity” which is valid, as Aristotle observed, and that is the mathematical use. It is valid only when used to indicate a potentiality, never an actuality. Take the number series as an example. You can say it is infinite in the sense that, no matter how many numbers you count, there is always another number. You can always keep on counting; there’s no end. In that sense it is infinite—as a potential. But notice that, actually, however many numbers you count, wherever you stop, you only reached that point, you only got so far. . . . That’s Aristotle’s point that the actual is always finite. Infinity exists only in the form of the ability of certain series to be extended indefinitely; but however much they are extended, in actual fact, wherever you stop it is finite."

Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism”

lecture series (1976), Lecture 3.

"An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence."

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 18.

"Every unit of length, no matter how small, has some specific extension; every unit of time, no matter how small, has some specific duration. The idea of an infinitely small amount of length or temporal duration has validity only as a mathematical device useful for making certain calculations, not as a description of components of reality. Reality does not contain either points or instants (in the mathematical sense). By analogy: the average family has 2.2 children, but no actual family has 2.2 children; the “average family” exists only as a mathematical device."

Harry Binswanger “Q & A Department: Identity and Motion,”

The Objectivist Forum, Dec. 1981, 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? So, you base your deductions on more than experience? Less? The set referred to in the definition is just the right size: the integrated sum of knowledge of Existence. Knowledge is a sum across time and individuals, because it can be shared, even if the specific knowledge of any given individual is only part of the whole -- when you buy bread, you rely, implicitly, on the knowledge of the baker to get leverage via division of labor. And "experiential knowledge" is redundant.

Wtf are you talking about?

1). What does deductions have to do with what I said?

2).There are concepts that particularly refer to aspects of existence that one has not observed.

3). Existence, the widest abstraction is not definable save ostensibly! Any attempt is circular.

I think your working definition of the word "experience" is insufficient. Thoughts are experiences, too -- and so is every act of production, and every use of a product, and every trade, and every act of creation or destruction.

I have not used the word "experience".How could your comment be anything but arbitrary?Where have i denied the reality of mental existents or our experience of them?

Experience is the individual's grasp of the events that transpire as Existence evolves, is a natural restriction of Existence to the individual consciousness.

You are here claim the primacy of consciousness and that concepts cannot not refer to the unexperienced. The very word "unexperienced" is an example of such a concept, as is unobserved , unknown, and unknowable.

I don't think so. Experience is the means by which we become aware of, and act within, Existence. It is the personal perspective of Existence, as grasped by an individual, via individual means. .

As Weaver has explained you are confusing consciousness with experience.

As such, the fact that experience of events is the basis of my grasp of reality is clearly a corollary of the metaphysical axioms of Objectivism

It would refer to the axiom of consciousness,which of course is secondary to existence! You are conflating existence with consciousness as Ive said.

Experience is pre-supposed by any cognitive or actual event, because awareness requires experience of otherness, and without awareness, consciousness is naught. This is clearly metaphysical and cannot be proven, only validated as self-evident. It's metaphysical.

This does nothing to prove your assertion about the universe or existence.No one denies this only your rediculous idea that it informs your idea of the universe.

As for science as a discipline being metaphysical at root, of course it is; any specific science is an application of metaphysics to gain knowledge, i.e., the methods of gaining knowledge are epistemological; but the knowledge and its basis in facts of experience is a given (once created by an individual), a fact of reality, and can only be deduced if experience is a metaphysical primary, howsoever one wishes to organize and relate one's experiences to gain leverage (which is the purpose of epistemology).

Again no one is refuting the first part. The rest is gibberish nonsense. Experience is NOT a "metaphysical primary".

A working definition of "Existence" is essential to proceed much past the self-evident; and that definition must be objective, i.e., based on objects that we can sense and/or conceive.

Have fun trying to find a genus and differentia for "existence".

A conceptual object, if properly based on Existence, is an integrated product of existents as grasped by a rational mind (including relationships, which are another mode of existent). The best word for this integration is "experience", which is precisely the conjoining of an individual consciousness with sensory data, to form objects -- objects of one's experience

No, the word for it is concept , which is an object of consciousness.

It is true that what I know today is not complete (or else time would have stopped); but given today's context, all I have to work with is my current experience, and in some cases I can identify reliable others and incorporate their stated experiences in my calculations; of course, I only do this when I deem the other ideas plausible, and trust the other person to have done their conceptual job well. I must do this; I can't do everything, labor must be divided and knowledge shared to create productive leverage
.

This does nothing to support your claim about existence being subject to the existents that conceptualize it.

So why is it not sufficient to state the definition in terms of the objects of experience, i.e., that which I CAN grasp by cognitive means -- why do you feel the need to (implicitly) uphold hidden variables, rather than rely on your senses and ability to correlate them?

Because existence connot be defined without circularity and because it encompasses that which one has not and cannot observe.

The definition is precisely the right size.

Size does not apply to definitions

Perhaps, you have a better one?

Existence exists.

It is easy to criticize, and maybe you think it sufficient to identify Existence without defining it; but, operationally, you will act in accord with your definition -- so please make it explicit for your own sake (principle of least surprise, no one needs to be puppeted by implicit assumptions).

Id be worried about implicit and explicit assumptions if I were you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that I am responding to an objection which says "It is impossible for a consciousness to exist without a physical brain". The burden of proof in this case is on the other foot. It would suffice for me to say "prove it" to you. The only ammunition you have is that we have never experienced it empirically- which is hardly a rock-solid case.

No you are not because I didnt say it was impossible. I said it was arbitrary AFTER you asserted it was possible. The onus is yours!

However, I am being generous and attempting to help you understand in what sense it IS possible by explaining that there is a necessary difference in US between mind and physical brain- and that therefore it is not at all inconceivable that a mind could exist without a physical brain in an non-physical entity.

Your assertion rest on another arbitrary concept. There is no evidence for such a "non-physical entity" You are indeed divorcing "mind" from its context as a stolen concept.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you are not because I didnt say it was impossible. I said it was arbitrary AFTER you asserted it was possible. The onus is yours!

I apologize. I'm tired and I had Brian in mind in that response. I WAS responding to him, and you responded to my response to him. I shouldn't have said "you", I should have said "anyone who thinks my position is irrational because they believe that consciousness apart from a physical brain is impossible".

I am not setting forth an argument on this small point. This small point is being used as an objection against the entirety of my position (the existence of God).

Your assertion rest on another arbitrary concept. There is no evidence for such a "non-physical entity" You are indeed divorcing "mind" from its context as a stolen concept.

The whole point of this thread/argument is to debate the evidence or proof for this "non-physical entity" (God). If my proofs stand, than there is ample reason to believe it exists and the assumption that a mind can ONLY belong to a physical entity is hardly a proof against it's (God's) existence.

I see no reason at all to believe that "mind" and "physicality" are necessarily and logically linked such that one cannot exist without the other. Is this your only argument or objection against my position??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

That looks valid. I can see why you feel trapped by this argument - it's more subtle than the argument that the typical theist will give.

If I can also offer a criticism, I would wonder why the series of causes would stop going backward at some particular point. It doesn't seem like enough to just draw a distinction between effects and first causes like you do; you need to provide some reason why the series stops. In the absence of such an explanation, I would be tempted to just deny that there can't be an actual infinite. (I would be tempted to deny A.)

You rely on the principle of determination in your first post, but I don't see any reason to accept the principle of determination - perhaps there's some non-personal process that creates universes from outside time. It's hard to explain why such a process would create a universe at one time rather than another, but no more so than to explain why a free being acts at one time rather than another.

Have you followed the rest of the posts? Considered any of the arguments (on either side) any further?

I ask because I appreciate you honest approach to the issue.

Here is a link to the Ayn Rand Lexicon with quotes concerning the impossibility of an actual infinity:

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

(I also posted the quotes explicitly in an above post).

In short, an actual infinity (in reality) is impossible because without an actual "one" or "beginning" there is no actual "two, three, four..." or "middle". Aristotle held to this as did Rand and as does Peikoff and Binswanger (for what it's worth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you hold "that an actual infinity is impossible, but that past events are not actual and therefore cannot be considered to comprise an actual infinity"? I am under the impression that this is your position.

OR, do you hold that "an actual infinity is possible, whether we are talking about past events or not"?

It is certainly not possible for a physical entity to have an infinite (i.e. unbounded) attribute. If you contend that this limit applies elsewhere, e.g. to abstract notions such as "the past", that is your assertion - feel free to back it up with evidence.

Or, to put in laymen's terms: "If there was never a beginning (a first event), there would never be a middle (subsequent events)."

This is your arbitrary assertion. Back it up with evidence.

However, Theism holds that God EXISTS and that He was conscious of His EXISTENCE-not solely His Consciousness. This is no more irrational than Me being conscious of my own existence

Your consciousness is predicated on your body's physical existence. All examples of consciousness are. You claim that a consciousness can exist without a physical body. That is your arbitrary assertion. Feel free to back it up with evidence.

He is Existence as such.

Then dispense with "God" and just use the word "existence" like everyone else.

Objectivists know that because "Existence Exists", Existence must therefore be eternal

Eternality is a concept predicated on time, which is predicated on the motion of physical objects. Time is therefore incoherent apart from the motion of physical objects. Any claims to such are arbitrary.

but Existence is a property belonging to entities.

All of the referents for the concept of "property" are attributes that are selectively applied to existents. Some things are red, others are blue. But they are ALL things, and they ALL exist. So you are misusing the word "property". Your assertion of existence as a property, to be applied selectively to things, is nonsensical and arbitrary.

Put some non-existent things in my hand, and when I can observe them with my eye, I will believe you that existence is a property.

Must it imply observation of OTHER entities?

Yes. It is only by observing reality and differentiating entities that a consciousness can differentiate itself from anything else, in order to identify itself. Imagine a baby born without any senses, with all means of signaling the brain severed. Such a mind could not differentiate anything, let alone itself from anything else.

Agreed. And I believe time began the moment that God created an other entity and set it in motion.

All of the referents of the concept of "creating" involve pre-existing entities moving and interacting according to their natures. Your assertion of a creation apart from motion is incoherent and arbitrary.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness does not belong to "brain" but to "mind". Just because we don't experience "mind" apart from "brain" does not mean that there is not a distinction.

It means that any claim to such a distinction is incoherent and arbitrary.

Furthermore, just because we do not experience "mind" apart from "brain" does not mean that it is impossible for a "mind" to exist apart from the physical material of a brain.

All evidence points to that. So your assertion is arbitrary, and should be disregarded by any rational being.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you followed the rest of the posts? Considered any of the arguments (on either side) any further?

I ask because I appreciate you honest approach to the issue.

I've reread everything in the recent flurry of discussion. I think the strongest argument against you is the impossibility of a mind apart from a brain. brian0918 is perhaps your strongest opponent. I think that his arguments in post #164 are pretty forceful (some of them). Then again, you haven't had a chance to reply to that post yet.

Here is a link to the Ayn Rand Lexicon with quotes concerning the impossibility of an actual infinity:

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

(I also posted the quotes explicitly in an above post).

In short, an actual infinity (in reality) is impossible because without an actual "one" or "beginning" there is no actual "two, three, four..." or "middle". Aristotle held to this as did Rand and as does Peikoff and Binswanger (for what it's worth).

Theists make this move a lot. The reply is that there is no "first point" in the series. There's just a series stretching back forever.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly not possible for a physical entity to have an infinite (i.e. unbounded) attribute. If you contend that this limit applies elsewhere, e.g. to abstract notions such as "the past", that is your assertion - feel free to back it up with evidence.

1) "the past" itself, is not solely an abstraction. It's actuality does not depend upon my consciousness abstracting about it. When we "abstract" we are either right or wrong in our abstracting. If we are right, it is because the abstraction correlates to objective reality (the way things actually are). If we are wrong, it's because the abstraction fails to correlate to objective reality. Either way, the emphasis here is not on our subjective conscious abstractions- but on the object of those abstractions (the actual events of the past which are infallibly part of objective reality). Just because it is not here and now and under a microscope- just because we must abstract in order to communicate about it, does not change the fact that IT is real.

2) This limit applies to any and all actual things (whether physical objects, attributes of a physical object, events, etc..). There is always a potentially infinite number of things but never an actually infinite number of things. What sort of evidence are you looking for!? lol. I am paraphrasing almost every philosopher that we would both mutually respect. This is by far the majority position amongst actual philosophers and it's truth seems rather obvious. If you disagree, this seems to be your problem- not mine.

"If there was never a beginning (a first event), there would never be a middle (subsequent events)."

This is your arbitrary assertion. Back it up with evidence.

Haha. This is like demanding evidence that 2 and 2 make 4. Is this REALLY the position of most Objectivists? That there are actual infinities and that statements such as the one above are arbitrary assertions rather than obvious facts?? If so, I think I am truly disappointed. I'm comforted only by the fact that Rand herself did not seem to hold to such nonsense- though maybe she would have gone there if pressed on this issue?? I like to think not.

That statement is almost axiomatic because of the definitions of the words. A middle by definition is that which has a beginning.

Or, let me put it in your lingo: The concept "middle" implies a "beginning". To assume that it can be used apart from the context of a beginning is to steal it from it's context.

Am I to alone rebuild all of logic and philosophy- to re-establish ("provide evidence for") everything which has already been established by countless men with much better intellect than my own, in order to be allowed to discuss reality?

I have absolutely every rational reason to believe that there cannot be an actual infinity- if you have some rational reason to doubt this, please submit it.

Your consciousness is predicated on your body's physical existence. All examples of consciousness are. You claim that a consciousness can exist without a physical body. That is your arbitrary assertion. Feel free to back it up with evidence.

With all due respect, you are severely avoiding the subject here. This "argument for the existence of God" is meant to prove that God exists. What I have established so far in this argument (on this thread) is my evidence. You are launching an objection against the existence of God which goes something like this:

"God has a mind but not a physical body and this is impossible because all minds that we know of are correlated to physical bodies". In effect, you are saying "all minds that I know of are correlated to a physical body, therefore all minds are correlated to a physical body, therefore there cannot be a God".

If you wish to start a thread (or even write a book) on this half-baked argument against the existence of God, be my guest.

I am not arguing FOR the existence of God solely based on the assertion "that there is a non-physical entity which has a mind". I am simply responding to your objections on that particular issue by saying that it is not at all inconceivable or irrational and therefore is not a sufficient reason to throw out the rest of the discussion on proofs for the existence of God.

I do not need to "prove" with evidence that a consciousness exists without a physical body (i.e. present a consciousness which belongs to a non-physical entity to you for your examination). I simply need to demonstrate that there is a difference or distinction between the two (mind and physical brain matter) in order to show that one existing without the other is not irrational or inconceivable.

I believe I have already done this, but in case you didn't get it: The activity of our consciousness must be distinct from the physical activity of the brain in order for any of out conscious ideas to be considered valid. If you disagree with this, I suppose we could take that issue up- but again, I believe I have the majority of actual philosophers on my side.

Then dispense with "God" and just use the word "existence" like everyone else.

The axiom "Existence exists" demands that something exist as such (in and of itself)- with no outside explanation for it's existence. Objectivism assumes that this is nature. In this thread, I am challenging that assumption based on the fact that certain other things must be true about that which exists as such (that which has no explanation for it's existence or "necessary being"). I am not content to assume that it is nature because nature does not seem to fit the bill. Again, that is the point of this thread.

** I'm sorry, I've run out of time and need to head into work. I will try to respond to the rest later**

Eternality is a concept predicated on time, which is predicated on the motion of physical objects. Time is therefore incoherent apart from the motion of physical objects. Any claims to such are arbitrary.

All of the referents for the concept of "property" are attributes that are selectively applied to existents. Some things are red, others are blue. But they are ALL things, and they ALL exist. So you are misusing the word "property". Your assertion of existence as a property, to be applied selectively to things, is nonsensical and arbitrary.

Put some non-existent things in my hand, and when I can observe them with my eye, I will believe you that existence is a property.

Yes. It is only by observing reality and differentiating entities that a consciousness can differentiate itself from anything else, in order to identify itself. Imagine a baby born without any senses, with all means of signaling the brain severed. Such a mind could not differentiate anything, let alone itself from anything else.

All of the referents of the concept of "creating" involve pre-existing entities moving and interacting according to their natures. Your assertion of a creation apart from motion is incoherent and arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've reread everything in the recent flurry of discussion. I think the strongest argument against you is the impossibility of a mind apart from a brain. brian0918 is perhaps your strongest opponent. I think that his arguments in post #164 are pretty forceful (some of them). Then again, you haven't had a chance to reply to that post yet.

Well, if the goal is verbal judo, cheering for the team that most aligns with your entrenched viewpoints would be the natural thing to do.

If on the otherhand, discovering the proper methods of aligning the concepts in your mind with the observations of the world around you, and the universe which you find yourself a part of, perhaps the percieved winner of a verbal judo contest is not the ultimate standard upon which to base your own personal epistemology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if the goal is verbal judo, cheering for the team that most aligns with your entrenched viewpoints would be the natural thing to do.

If on the otherhand, discovering the proper methods of aligning the concepts in your mind with the observations of the world around you, and the universe which you find yourself a part of, perhaps the percieved winner of a verbal judo contest is not the ultimate standard upon which to base your own personal epistemology.

I wasn't cheering for anyone. I was giving my evaluation of the discussion thus far, at Jacob's request. The goal is not "verbal judo." I have no idea what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't cheering for anyone. I was giving my evaluation of the discussion thus far, at Jacob's request. The goal is not "verbal judo." I have no idea what you're talking about.

It was metaphorical.

Most of the argument presented here posited against the objectivist identification of metaphysics, rest on floating abstractions or outright invalid concepts.

Refusal to define and integrate one's concepts does not bolster their argument.

Defining and integrating one's concepts is a volitional activity, open to error and in the face of error, subsequent correction.

Several errors have been pointed out on the side of those positing the argument for the existence of God. At that point, an individuals intellectual integrety is made available for evaluation and subsequent judgement. Brian0918 is viewed as 'the strongest opponent' (which inspired my 'vebal judo' metaphor) because he is relying on the previous efforts his mind has made to rigorously define and integrate the concepts he is using, with the generous use of his time to assist those assumed to be in honest pursuit of clarifying their own mental chaos. What his opponents do with the errors that are highlighted and identified will reveal if this is just a 'vebal judo match' or an honest attempt to grasp and comprehend and develop a epistemology to deal with the universe which we all find ourselves a part of.

I hope this clarifies what I was talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness is the means by which we are aware of, and act within existence.

Experience is a result of consciousness.

I think there are three identifiable objects in the mix: Existence, Consciousness, and their interaction, which comes in discrete packets/frames/snapshots/wholes/identifables, which is what I refer to as experience (I think rightfully so).

Existence: the observable

Consciousness: the observer

Experience: the observation

The product of each observation of the observable is an observation.

Observations, once identified, can be used as the basis of logic, and form the grist for the conceptual mill.

So we are debating what the word "means" means.

And I think, if I have properly identified our shaded meanings of the word "means", that you mean by "means" the power to observe and act with respect to Existence; whereas, I mean by "means" the object that is produced by exercising such power and which can then be used as input to further logics (higher order conceptioning).

Consciousness must accumulate experience in order to create and validate concepts.

Experience is the form in which Consciousness packages Existence into conceptual chunks.

Experience is the conjoining of Consciousness with Existence; without experience there can be no Consciousness -- and the "birth experience" with respect to Consciousness is having one's first experience ... i.e., Consciousness is awareness of otherness, and the product of it comes in units of experience.

So experience is the product of awareness and the basis of conceptions, and their logical conclusions in action (which is another form of experience, of Consciousness interacting with Existence).

Consciousness is the means by which I produce experience; experience is the means by which I validate concepts; and they are logical corollaries, with one implying the other and vice versa. Experiences are the natural objects to consider when thinking about Objectivism, and Consciousness is the power to direct one's consideration and actions.

So I guess I can't say you are wrong, but neither am I; just, we are focusing on different aspects of the same fundamental process (which we appear to agree is at the root of knowledge).

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) "the past" itself, is not solely an abstraction. It's actuality does not depend upon my consciousness abstracting about it.

Then point me to it. If it is not solely an abstraction, then it must at least be partially physical. I see a chair. I see a mirror. I don't see the past. I can think about it, and remember buying the chair. But that interaction (my buying the chair) has already occurred, and is no longer occurring.

When we "abstract" we are either right or wrong in our abstracting. If we are right, it is because the abstraction correlates to objective reality (the way things actually are). If we are wrong, it's because the abstraction fails to correlate to objective reality.

And you determine whether you are right or wrong about the past by examining the evidence, and trying to trace backwards the previous interactions of existing objects. Reality just is - and to be objective is to determine reality.

the actual events of the past which are infallibly part of objective reality

Infallibility implies a *knower*. There is no *knower* who is cataloging all events, and whose consultation we must seek to determine whether our judgments about the past are actually correct.

What sort of evidence are you looking for!? lol. I am paraphrasing almost every philosopher that we would both mutually respect. This is by far the majority position amongst actual philosophers and it's truth seems rather obvious.

Appeals to authority, tradition, majority, and intuition, are not arguments, even when they are used together in the same sentence.

<snip out ad hominem>

That statement is almost axiomatic because of the definitions of the words. A middle by definition is that which has a beginning.

Now you are flipping the question. I agree that there must be a beginning and an end to determine a middle. I can judge the halfway point of someone's life by comparing the time when they were born to the time when they died.

What relevance that has to do with the possibility of interactions of entities is what you are supposed to be showing.

Here is your argument, simply put: 1) you assert there is a beginning to all of reality, 2) and then state that because a middle requires a beginning, 3) therefore there was a beginning. You've simply shifted the question from why a certain event in the past must have been a "beginning" to why a certain event in the present must be a "middle", which begs the question.

Am I to alone rebuild all of logic and philosophy- to re-establish ("provide evidence for") everything which has already been established by countless men with much better intellect than my own, in order to be allowed to discuss reality?

You have not been discussing reality, and making appeals to tradition and authority will not make it any more real.

You are launching an objection against the existence of God which goes something like this:

"God has a mind but not a physical body and this is impossible because all minds that we know of are correlated to physical bodies". In effect, you are saying "all minds that I know of are correlated to a physical body, therefore all minds are correlated to a physical body, therefore there cannot be a God".

If you wish to start a thread (or even write a book) on this half-baked argument against the existence of God, be my guest.

I said it was arbitrary, not impossible, although I see no means for its possibility. You assert it, you prove it.

I am not arguing FOR the existence of God solely based on the assertion "that there is a non-physical entity which has a mind". I am simply responding to your objections on that particular issue by saying that it is not at all inconceivable or irrational

A mind apart from a physical brain is inconceivable, goes against all knowledge, and therefore is arbitrary. To accept the arbitrary is irrational. A non-physical existent, which does not itself depend on something physical for its existence (e.g. a thought), is also inconceivable, goes against all knowledge, and therefore is arbitrary.

I do not need to "prove" with evidence that a consciousness exists without a physical body (i.e. present a consciousness which belongs to a non-physical entity to you for your examination).

Don't bother trying, as you certainly could not accomplish such a feat. You need to show any basis for your arbitrary assertions, to make them even possible, let alone probable or true. You haven't even started by showing the possibility of a consciousness apart from a physical brain, let alone an existent that is neither physical nor dependent on the physical for its existence (e.g. an idea).

I simply need to demonstrate that there is a difference or distinction between the two (mind and physical brain matter) in order to show that one existing without the other is not irrational or inconceivable.

This is yet another arbitrary assertion, and goes against all knowledge. The fact that I can abstract away the concepts of "purple", "idea", and "sleep", does not mean that there is anything conceivable/rational/possible about a purple idea sleeping. Those concepts are all contextual, as is all of knowledge. They are only valid in certain contexts.

"Mind" is only a valid concept within the context of "brain". If there is ever evidence that rocks have minds, then it will be necessary to incorporate their minds as referents to the concept of "mind", and a brain would no longer be an essential, defining characteristic of "mind". Until then, rocks with minds is inconceivable and arbitrary, and accepting it as a possibility is irrational.

The activity of our consciousness must be distinct from the physical activity of the brain in order for any of out conscious ideas to be considered valid.

This is your assertion. Feel free to support it. Show me that if my brain is actually involved in the work of my mind, then my thoughts are invalid.

The axiom "Existence exists" demands that something exist as such (in and of itself)- with no outside explanation for it's existence.

Explaining existence would require stepping outside of existence. Existence just is. Those things which exist just do. There is no why. Logic and reason assume existence, so "why" is only valid in the context of existence.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should note that the continued value I am gaining from this discussion is waning, and I will probably not continue on with this much further. I used to regularly fall into the trap of rationalism, so it is valuable to me to occasionally reaffirm that I am capable of rejecting and refuting it.

I encourage others who also find themselves falling into such a trap to participate and better understand where the errors arise and how to avoid them. The most important fact to keep in mind is that the meaning of a concept is its referents, and so concepts have contexts of applicability when forming statements. Putting words together into a grammatically-correct arrangement does not necessarily render the resulting statement coherent.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. This is like demanding evidence that 2 and 2 make 4. Is this REALLY the position of most Objectivists? That there are actual infinities and that statements such as the one above are arbitrary assertions rather than obvious facts??

I thought it was worth pointing out here it sounds like your idea of a beginning of existence is an "obvious" fact in your estimation. No, you don't need to rebuild logic and philosophy, but really, if you have validated some fact, it shouldn't be *too* difficult to explain at least in a few sentences. I have not read the thread or many of your posts, but I can respond to this little portion here.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing FOR the existence of God solely based on the assertion "that there is a non-physical entity which has a mind". I am simply responding to your objections on that particular issue by saying that it is not at all inconceivable or irrational and therefore is not a sufficient reason to throw out the rest of the discussion on proofs for the existence of God.

Your thread title is :" Argument for the existence of God". All of your arguments will rest upon what you define "god" as. Your whole position requires and asserts arbitrary existents.

Brian said:

All of the referents of the concept of "creating" involve pre-existing entities moving and interacting according to their natures. Your assertion of a creation apart from motion is incoherent and arbitrary

I would add that all context of creating involve permutating physical entities into another combination.

So we have an arbirary assertion of a non-physical entity that existed alone and created other existents from presumably non physical "substances".......

Edited by brian0918
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...