Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.

[Jacob86]

Here is another much simpler refutation of the omnipotence's concept.

Can all-powerful thing create the rock so heavy than he himself he cannot lift?

1) As Dante pointed out, this definition of omnipotence is currently under discussion in this thread.

2) Allow me to demonstrate why:

This question essentially asks "Can an all-powerful being be not all-powerful?" Or "Can an all-powerful being have the "power" to make himself not all-powerful?"

The question (i.e. "refutation") is an inherent contradiction. "All-powerful" means the inability to lack a power.

If you want to equate "ability to be weak" with a "power" than you destroy the meaning of power and turn Objectivist ethics on its head.

[Greebo]

Jacob:

I'm curious how you tie o'ist ethics and power together.

[bluecherry]

1) As Dante pointed out, this definition of omnipotence is currently under discussion in this thread.

2) Allow me to demonstrate why:

This question essentially asks "Can an all-powerful being be not all-powerful?" Or "Can an all-powerful being have the "power" to make himself not all-powerful?"

The question (i.e. "refutation") is an inherent contradiction. "All-powerful" means the inability to lack a power.

If you want to equate "ability to be weak" with a "power" than you destroy the meaning of power and turn Objectivist ethics on its head.

Of course it is an inherent contradiction - that's exactly the point that is being demonstrated, that the very proposition of omnipotence is incoherent.

We've been using the word "power" to mean "ability." That's a pretty clear meaning right there. You've suggested the problem is using power to mean ability and suggest instead it should mean strength. But there's a problem using power to just mean strength here because it begs a further question. Strengths and weaknesses, the things you suggest we frame the debate in, are judged on a scale. One is strong or weak judged against some standard, strong or weak at something. What is the scale this deity is supposed to be strong judged by? Since power is here given the pre-fix "all" it is taken to mean strong at EVERYTHING. That then comes back down to our earlier usage of "power" in this case being equatable to "ability." This all-powerful thing should be able to not only do EVERYTHING, but do it with ease even basically. "Everything" inherently includes self-defeating things as you noted. You've objected that these would be "weaknesses" to be able to do, but that's only a weakness by a different standard than the one specified earlier. It's weakness by a standard of what may be helpful or detrimental, but the standard was not specifying just powerful at the helpful things, it says "everything" basically. Trying to specify that it would be limited to helpful things would actually be redundant too to the usual other included "characteristic" of an all-powerful being of being "all good." Thinking of it as "strength = good" is a common association, but not an inherent property of strength. All strength means is in fact being highly capable at something or by some standard. One can be a criminal and have their "strength" as such be in bank robbery, that's their area of expertise. Furthermore, looking at it from the standpoint of helpful or detrimental, what is helpful or detrimental to a supposedly indestructable being anyway? Nothing goes one way or the other for them there really now does it? Humans can be wiped out, so things are helpful or harmful to us because we've got something at stake. This deity on the other hand? Nothing at stake for them is there. Do something that blows up earth and all the people and not like this result? Poof it all back like it never happened. Et cetera.

[Trebor]

You have said:

I am convinced in the existence of God because of the compelling rationality behind that position. My allegiance is to truth and rationality-- no matter where that takes me.

And:

To answer your other question, yes! If I was presented with compelling reason to believe that there is not a God, I would happily reject my Theism.

You say that you are rationally convinced of the existence of God, that you know that there is a God, yet you started another thread, "Argument for the existence of God" with the subtitle, "Please convince me that this is false (IF indeed it is)."

If you know that there is a God, then why are you asking to be convinced that there isn't a God?

To be perfectly honest, there are times that I irrationally wish that I could negate my knowledge of God because it could make some things easier....

It is much easier in the short run to neglect the larger context and act range-of-the-moment... not better, but easier (and only short term).

If you have the truth, if you know that there is a God, then why do you have trouble neglecting the larger context? What are some of the significant issues that you have difficulty with given that you know there is a God?

You say, in that other thread, right up front that you fell in love with Objectivism. ("I have recently fallen in love (intellectually and morally) with Rand's philosophy- however I struggle a great deal with the issue of Theism vs Atheism and I think it is too important of a question for me to easily dismiss. I need to discover which is true and to be certain of it based on solid reasoning.") But Objectivism is atheistic. How can you know (and presumably love God), yet also love an atheistic philosophy? If you already know ("because of the compelling rationality") that theism is true, then there's no need to "discover which is true and to be certain of it based on solid reasoning."

At 17 I decided that I needed to figure out for myself whether or not there was a God and if so, what type of God He is and if He expected anything of me... I realized that IF God existed, I couldn't hide behind my ignorance and agnosticism. So I began looking into different ideas of God and became attracted to various types of theology and philosophy (comparing and contrasting, chewing meat, spitting out bones, etc...) Through much study, debate, questioning, etc... I am rationally convinced that God exists and that He must have certain attributes and a certain type of relation to His creation.

Since you now know, since you are now rationally convinced that God exists, what does He expect of you?

If you know that there is a God and you know, presumably, what He expects of you, what's the issue and why are you here on an Objectivist forum arguing that there is a God with people who are atheists and hoping, you claim, that they can prove that you are wrong and that there isn't a God?

Are you trying to fulfill one of God's expectations of you, trying to save our souls?

Given all that you have said, that you are here on this forum seems disingenuous. I think an explanation is in order.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Trebor

[Leonid]

Omnipotence of alleged God doesn't mean that he is most powerful. It means that he possesses strength without limitation, a quality without identity. Since such a premise violates law of identity, it inevitably leads to contradictions. But contradictions don't exist and so the alleged God.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Leonid

[Jacob86]

Since you now know, since you are now rationally convinced that God exists, what does He expect of you?

If you know that there is a God and you know, presumably, what He expects of you, what's the issue and why are you here on an Objectivist forum arguing that there is a God with people who are atheists and hoping, you claim, that they can prove that you are wrong and that there isn't a God?

Are you trying to fulfill one of God's expectations of you, trying to save our souls?

Given all that you have said, that you are here on this forum seems disingenuous. I think an explanation is in order.

Yes, I apologize for the confusion. An explanation is in order.

When I first came to the forum, I had quite a few doubts about Theism. Most of it was simply the fact that Rand was so brilliant and it seemed reasonable to me that such a brilliant mind could not have possibly gotten such an important issue wrong. So, what I said in the beginning of that thread was genuine: I really was sort of "undecided" in the sense that I wanted to hear the best arguments against the existence of God (against the arguments which I had learned/read) in order to better understand the issue.

At first, I was heavily intimidated by everyone in the forum, but quickly realized that they were mis-reading the arguments which were being submitted (although much of that was likely my fault because I was not as clear as I could have been). After finally becoming more familiar with the Objectivist reasoning and most importantly with the functional Objectivist epistemology, I saw the flaw(s) which allowed Rand and many other-wise brilliant Objectivist thinkers to get the Theism issue wrong-- and subsequently was very much affirmed in my Theism.

I also have come to realize that it seems that very few Objectivist have applied their sharp minds fairly to the writings of Aquinas (and others) concerning Theism. It seems that had Aquinas been talking about egoism or capitalism, Objectivists would be capable of following his thought to a T, but because he is talking about Theism, his writings are automatically tarred & feathered with ridiculous straw men arguments and then quickly dismissed.

Now, why am I one here attempting to convince Objectivists that Theism is true?

1) Because what is true is good and right. I want Objectivists to know the truth concerning Theism because knowing, integrating, and applying the truth (especially regarding fundamental issues) is always good and right important.

2) Because Objectivists are passionate about a few very good fundemental principles which coincide with a Theistic worldview, such as:

a)commitment to reason

b)necessity and superiority of philosophy over all other thought

c)egoism as the fundamental virtue

I have to say, personally, that it was mostly the third (egoism and all the implications of it) which has attracted me most to Rand and Objectivists in general. That is because I am convinced that God is the ultimate egoist - in contrast to most unthinking Theists who believe that He is the ultimate altruist.

3) Because I enjoy the intellectual and spiritual stimulation of a healthy discussion with passionate, sharp, thinkers.

I'm sure I could list many other reasons, but I assure you that none of them are fear or duty based as though I am afraid I will be punished if I do not. haha.

[Trebor]

There's one small problem with your theistic view. It is wrong, not true, not valid, incorrect.

There is no God or god(s).

Of course, you are free to believe what you want. You are, however, solely responsible for your beliefs as well as the consequences of your beliefs.

Your basic error is addressed here by Nathaniel Branden, "The Concept of God," but others here on this forum have addressed your so-called logical argument(s) for God as the first cause as well.

[Greebo]

1) Because what is true is good and right.

Poppycock.

What is true is real. What is true may be good OR evil. That the lion wishes to eat the gazelle is true and good for the lion, and true and bad for the gazelle.

The Earthquake in Haiti and the Tsunami were good and right for no living thing, and made no difference to anything else. They simply were.

I want Objectivists to know the truth concerning Theism because knowing, integrating, and applying the truth (especially regarding fundamental issues) is always good and right important.

Even if your God exists - of what use is he or she or it?

[Jacob86]

There's one small problem with your theistic view. It is wrong, not true, not valid, incorrect.

There is no God or god(s).

Of course, you are free to believe what you want. You are, however, solely responsible for your beliefs as well as the consequences of your beliefs.

Your basic error is addressed here by Nathaniel Branden, "The Concept of God," but others here on this forum have addressed your so-called logical argument(s) for God as the first cause as well.

I do not know of ANY Theistic Philosopher who argued that "existence" as such requires a cause. I certainly have not. I do not know of any Theist who has argued that God was non-existent and created existence. I do not know of any sophisticated Theologian who ever claimed that "everything" requires a cause. I haven't read much of Aristotle first hand, but I would venture to guess that he didn't posit the ridiculous positions that are set up as strawmen among Objectivists. I know that Aquinas did not posit such ridiculous positions. And I know that I have not posited such ridiculous positions.

Branden's argument there (and the major Objectivist responses in this forum) are perfect in response to anyone who would like to posit that God is a non-existent being who caused existence as such based on the fact that existence as such and everything requires a causes.

Unfortunately, that position has NOT been presented here, or by any major Theistic philosopher in history. So I have NO clue who Objectivists are arguing against on that issue.

I will not answer this objection again until the objector can accurately repeat back to me MY position: that every action requires a cause and that a volitional actor is required to begin the chain of causation - NOT TO BEGIN EXISTENCE, but action/causation.

If you do not care to accurately understand my position, then don't bother responding to it.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Jacob86

[Jacob86]

Poppycock.

What is true is real. What is true may be good OR evil. That the lion wishes to eat the gazelle is true and good for the lion, and true and bad for the gazelle.

The Earthquake in Haiti and the Tsunami were good and right for no living thing, and made no difference to anything else. They simply were.

Even if your God exists - of what use is he or she or it?

I meant that what is true determines what is good. Knowledge is good. Knowing fundamental facts about reality is good. Ignorance of fundamental facts about reality leads to error and devastation eventually.

[dream_weaver]

I meant that what is true determines what is good. Knowledge is good. Knowing fundamental facts about reality is good. Ignorance of fundamental facts about reality leads to error and devastation eventually.

Miss Rand's point, quite cogently.

[Trebor]

I will not answer this objection again until the objector can accurately repeat back to me MY position: that every action requires a cause and that a volitional actor is required to begin the chain of causation - NOT TO BEGIN EXISTENCE, but action/causation.

If you do not care to accurately understand my position, then don't bother responding to it.

In the beginning all was static, frozen, immobile, excepting for one part of existence, God. God was animated, but lonely. There was no one else to play with. The universe was dead, unappealing. God said, "Let's energize the universe!" and His will be done, the universe began to move.

Pretty close?

Edit: Scratch that "in the beginning" part. There wasn't a beginning. Existence existed, God too, but for a long, long, long time (twas hard to calculate exactly given the lack of motion), all was still (but God). God is the "Energizer Bunny" to the universe, moving about all the immobile things, bumping into this and that. Then one day he simply got hurt really bad (or is it badly; he didn't care; he wasn't trying to explain it; it just hurt, surprisingly so), and it upset him, really, really upset him, so much so, that with an all-powerful thrust, he pushed one immobile thing, which then hit another, then another and another, and the universe was in motion. "Wow!," said God (to no one in particular or in general), "This is great! Now I know what's been missing all this while."

Then he invented golf, baseball, socker, etc., and that, as they say, is the rest of the story.

Edit: punctuation. I am mortal, after all, no God. I make mistakes.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Trebor

[2046]

I do not know of ANY Theistic Philosopher who argued that "existence" as such requires a cause. I certainly have not. I do not know of any Theist who has argued that God was non-existent and created existence. I do not know of any sophisticated Theologian who ever claimed that "everything" requires a cause. I haven't read much of Aristotle first hand, but I would venture to guess that he didn't posit the ridiculous positions that are set up as strawmen among Objectivists. I know that Aquinas did not posit such ridiculous positions. And I know that I have not posited such ridiculous positions.

Branden's argument there (and the major Objectivist responses in this forum) are perfect in response to anyone who would like to posit that God is a non-existent being who caused existence as such based on the fact that existence as such and everything requires a causes.

Unfortunately, that position has NOT been presented here, or by any major Theistic philosopher in history. So I have NO clue who Objectivists are arguing against on that issue.

I will not answer this objection again until the objector can accurately repeat back to me MY position: that every action requires a cause and that a volitional actor is required to begin the chain of causation - NOT TO BEGIN EXISTENCE, but action/causation.

If you do not care to accurately understand my position, then don't bother responding to it.

The "cosmological argument" or "argument from First Cause" is exactly one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God. It is an argument that Aristotle used, which Aquinas repeated in 4 variations in the Summa Contra Gentiles. Your accusations of straw man serves as a straw man for you to pretend "no serious theologian" ever used any of the arguments we've responded to because we do not accept their premises and conclusions, or that any given response doesn't directly respond to every theist argument ever advanced. Keep deluding yourself, but someone will be there to point it out.

[Eiuol]

I will not answer this objection again until the objector can accurately repeat back to me MY position: that every action requires a cause and that a volitional actor is required to begin the chain of causation - NOT TO BEGIN EXISTENCE, but action/causation.

So, what is god made out of?

There are two options: god is made out of nothing, or god is made out of something. If god is made of nothing, how does he actually USE his volition on objects with physical form? If god is made out of something, then what does he look like, at least theoretically? Pretend that I have no idea and never considered the concept of god, and you are introducing me to the concept. If I were forming the concept god, these are questions I would ask.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Eiuol

[Greebo]

I meant that what is true determines what is good. Knowledge is good. Knowing fundamental facts about reality is good. Ignorance of fundamental facts about reality leads to error and devastation eventually.

Yes but you haven't established any facts, you've assumed them, and you have ignored every point showing that your assumed facts weren't necessarily the only option.

[Trebor]

Here's my earnest effort to identify Jacob86's metaphysics:

God exists (He is who and what he is; he is sui generis) and is conscious (without a brain or sense organs, etc. — his consciousness is not consciousness as we humans know it, awareness of things, external things primarily, but of ourselves secondarily, mediated via sense organs, brains, nerves, etc). 

Originally, or previously, before everything else existed (as the universe or all of existence is currently), only God existed, and God was conscious only of himself. If and when God "thought" — "thought" for God is not like thought for us humans — to himself, "Existence exists," the thought referred only to himself. He was all of existence and he was all that he was conscious of.

Eventually, some time previous to now, God created the rest of existence, all of existence which is not himself, and he created all that is not himself out of nothing, out of non-existence, bringing into existence that which had not existed, creating it out of nothing, from non-existence, "ex nihilo." (God's creation is not like any other creation; it is not the creation of something from something else, but of something from nothing.)

Given that existents (things or entities) can only act in two fundamental ways: volitionally (not caused by anything beyond itself) or reactively (caused by the actions of other existents), without an initial action, a beginning action, an action possible only to a conscious existent, in this case necessarily the eternally existing God, there would be no action beyond his own actions. God created the rest of existence and then set it into motion. And, presumably, God acts to keep the universe (all existence) moving. Without God, presumably, the universe, or that part of existence which is not God, would come to a halt. God keeps it all going, and God can take it all away. All but himself; God is eternal and indestructible. His ex nihilo creations he can surely destroy, making them all nothing once again.

Currently, given God's eventual creation of the rest of existence (existence that is non-God) ex nihilo, the axiom "Existence exists" refers to God's existence as well as the rest of existence which God created from nothing. "Existence exists" now refers to the eternal God and God's ex nihilo creations.

God then is the primary, eternal existent, the eternally existent creator (being eternal, God did not create himself) of all else that exists, and God, of necessity, is the prime mover, the primary motive power of the universe. He is the prime mover of himself by his own volitional choice, and he is the prime mover of all the rest of the universe which he created ex nihilo by his own volitional choice as well. All else, beyond God, which God created ex nihilo, acts in reaction to God's primary and volitionally chosen action(s).

The universe as it were is metaphorically a billiard table with a fresh rack of billiard balls. God created the balls, the table, the cue sticks, etc. ex nihilo, and then God, by his own volitional choice, took the break shot with an all-powerful force that set the rest of existence into motion, a motion that is still going strong (which certainly lends credibility to God's awesome and all-powerful role as the prime mover of existence).

God's existence does not require an explanation because God is the eternal existent, the uncaused cause of all else, the primary existent that exists eternally. What God has created out of nothing, surely he has the power to destroy. If he were to choose to do so, he could revert the universe, existence, back to the state of being solely that of his own existence with him being once again conscious of nothing but himself. (More awesome testament to God's all-powerful power, and his appreciation of his ex nihilo creation(s), with which he is content, at least sufficiently enough, to permit to continue to exist and remain in motion.)

Though God requires no explanation, all the rest of existence, which God created from nothing, ex nihilo, does require an explanation. That explanation is God's volition. God's volition is the cause for all else (beyond God) which exists as well as the cause of all action in existence, God's own volitionally chosen actions of his consciousness and the actions of all of his ex nihilo creations.

At the beginning of all of existence beyond God and the actions of all existence including God, there is God's volitional choice(s) to set everything into motion, himself as well as his ex nihilo creations — everything that is not God.

God is all-powerful, and yet God cannot contradict the fundamental laws of existence: Identity, Causality and Consciousness.

However, God can create something from nothing, from non-existence, ex nihilo, and God is conscious without having a brain or material means of consciousness. His consciousness is not limited by means, and God is omniscient (although Jacob86 has not, to my knowledge, yet stated this, I assume he holds this view). God is conscious of existence — he is conscious of his own eternal existence, and he is conscious of all that he has created ex nihilo.

Every thing is what it is (Identity) and acts in accord with its identify (Causality). Consciousness is consciousness (awareness) of existence. These laws of existence are inherent in existence and universally apply. God cannot contradict these laws. God is who he is, the primary existent and primary motive power of existence (by his voluntary choice). Although God is all-powerful, God's power cannot contradict the laws of existence. He is what he is; he acts in accord with his identity; he is conscious of existence (of his own eternal existence as well as his ex nihilo creations).

The essential argument (validation) that necessitates this metaphysics, according to Jacob86, if I understand correctly, is his claim that there cannot be a series of actions (reactions) going back to infinity, that a series of actions presupposes a beginning, a first action. Without such a beginning, without a prime mover, we would have a claim of an infinite regress of actions, a logical impossibility. The beginning then of all series of actions (of all actions indeed), directly or indirectly, is God's primary choice to act: to be conscious and to create all the rest of existence (beyond himself) ex nihilo and to also set his creation(s) into action or motion. The rest, as they say, is history.

Ex nihilo creation, Jacob86 apparently does not consider to be a contradiction of existence. Consciousness without a brain he apparently also does not consider to be a contradiction of existence. A series of actions without a beginning, he does hold to be a contradiction of existence — there cannot exist a series of actions without a first action, and there cannot be a first action without it being the action of a consciousness.

God then, according to Jacob86, is the primary existent and the prime mover of all existence, himself as well as his ex nihilo creation(s).

Edited April 30, 2011 by Trebor

[philosopher]

When someone claims there is an all powerful being, the best you can do is imagine yourself looking, staring really hard, at reality trying to understand it, and they say that again. Because in that context, you can really see how useless of a statement it is.

It's just arbitrary. It doesn't get you anywhere. It doesn't advance the discussion or the understanding. It is just a furphy out of nowhere. It's like "Yeah thanks mate, now back to what we were doing."

There is no requirement in the method of reason to refute every claim anybody ever makes. Reason is not about answering claims, but about induction and deduction from what is.

Edited April 30, 2011 by philosopher

[kowalskil]

This is just a refutation of the ontological argument I came up with.

This argument intends to show that an "all powerful being" is self contradictory and therefore non existent.

How should I interpret the term "being"? It already assumes "existence," of what you have in mind.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.

.

[Jacob86]

Here's my earnest effort to identify Jacob86's metaphysics:

God exists (He is who and what he is; he is sui generis) and is conscious (without a brain or sense organs, etc. — his consciousness is not consciousness as we humans know it, awareness of things, external things primarily, but of ourselves secondarily, mediated via sense organs, brains, nerves, etc). 

Originally, or previously, before everything else existed (as the universe or all of existence is currently), only God existed, and God was conscious only of himself. If and when God "thought" — "thought" for God is not like thought for us humans — to himself, "Existence exists," the thought referred only to himself. He was all of existence and he was all that he was conscious of.

Eventually, some time previous to now, God created the rest of existence, all of existence which is not himself, and he created all that is not himself out of nothing, out of non-existence, bringing into existence that which had not existed, creating it out of nothing, from non-existence, "ex nihilo." (God's creation is not like any other creation; it is not the creation of something from something else, but of something from nothing.)

Given that existents (things or entities) can only act in two fundamental ways: volitionally (not caused by anything beyond itself) or reactively (caused by the actions of other existents), without an initial action, a beginning action, an action possible only to a conscious existent, in this case necessarily the eternally existing God, there would be no action beyond his own actions. God created the rest of existence and then set it into motion. And, presumably, God acts to keep the universe (all existence) moving. Without God, presumably, the universe, or that part of existence which is not God, would come to a halt. God keeps it all going, and God can take it all away. All but himself; God is eternal and indestructible. His ex nihilo creations he can surely destroy, making them all nothing once again.

Currently, given God's eventual creation of the rest of existence (existence that is non-God) ex nihilo, the axiom "Existence exists" refers to God's existence as well as the rest of existence which God created from nothing. "Existence exists" now refers to the eternal God and God's ex nihilo creations.

God then is the primary, eternal existent, the eternally existent creator (being eternal, God did not create himself) of all else that exists, and God, of necessity, is the prime mover, the primary motive power of the universe. He is the prime mover of himself by his own volitional choice, and he is the prime mover of all the rest of the universe which he created ex nihilo by his own volitional choice as well. All else, beyond God, which God created ex nihilo, acts in reaction to God's primary and volitionally chosen action(s).

The universe as it were is metaphorically a billiard table with a fresh rack of billiard balls. God created the balls, the table, the cue sticks, etc. ex nihilo, and then God, by his own volitional choice, took the break shot with an all-powerful force that set the rest of existence into motion, a motion that is still going strong (which certainly lends credibility to God's awesome and all-powerful role as the prime mover of existence).

God's existence does not require an explanation because God is the eternal existent, the uncaused cause of all else, the primary existent that exists eternally. What God has created out of nothing, surely he has the power to destroy. If he were to choose to do so, he could revert the universe, existence, back to the state of being solely that of his own existence with him being once again conscious of nothing but himself. (More awesome testament to God's all-powerful power, and his appreciation of his ex nihilo creation(s), with which he is content, at least sufficiently enough, to permit to continue to exist and remain in motion.)

Though God requires no explanation, all the rest of existence, which God created from nothing, ex nihilo, does require an explanation. That explanation is God's volition. God's volition is the cause for all else (beyond God) which exists as well as the cause of all action in existence, God's own volitionally chosen actions of his consciousness and the actions of all of his ex nihilo creations.

At the beginning of all of existence beyond God and the actions of all existence including God, there is God's volitional choice(s) to set everything into motion, himself as well as his ex nihilo creations — everything that is not God.

God is all-powerful, and yet God cannot contradict the fundamental laws of existence: Identity, Causality and Consciousness.

However, God can create something from nothing, from non-existence, ex nihilo, and God is conscious without having a brain or material means of consciousness. His consciousness is not limited by means, and God is omniscient (although Jacob86 has not, to my knowledge, yet stated this, I assume he holds this view). God is conscious of existence — he is conscious of his own eternal existence, and he is conscious of all that he has created ex nihilo.

Every thing is what it is (Identity) and acts in accord with its identify (Causality). Consciousness is consciousness (awareness) of existence. These laws of existence are inherent in existence and universally apply. God cannot contradict these laws. God is who he is, the primary existent and primary motive power of existence (by his voluntary choice). Although God is all-powerful, God's power cannot contradict the laws of existence. He is what he is; he acts in accord with his identity; he is conscious of existence (of his own eternal existence as well as his ex nihilo creations).

The essential argument (validation) that necessitates this metaphysics, according to Jacob86, if I understand correctly, is his claim that there cannot be a series of actions (reactions) going back to infinity, that a series of actions presupposes a beginning, a first action. Without such a beginning, without a prime mover, we would have a claim of an infinite regress of actions, a logical impossibility. The beginning then of all series of actions (of all actions indeed), directly or indirectly, is God's primary choice to act: to be conscious and to create all the rest of existence (beyond himself) ex nihilo and to also set his creation(s) into action or motion. The rest, as they say, is history.

Ex nihilo creation, Jacob86 apparently does not consider to be a contradiction of existence. Consciousness without a brain he apparently also does not consider to be a contradiction of existence. A series of actions without a beginning, he does hold to be a contradiction of existence — there cannot exist a series of actions without a first action, and there cannot be a first action without it being the action of a consciousness.

God then, according to Jacob86, is the primary existent and the prime mover of all existence, himself as well as his ex nihilo creation(s).

If I could shake your hand right now, I would. I acknowledge and admire your honesty and willingness to accurately understand my position. I would love to discuss this and other issues with you and others like you- but ONLY others like you. I do not have the time and patience to go in circles with those who are unwilling to attempt to interact with my actual positions.

Your description of my position is accurate- not exhaustive, but accurate. I am currently dedicating the majority of my free time to my writing and the development of my own philosophical nuances, but I will attempt to interact with you (or others like you) via this forum or personal email as much as my time and interest allows.

Again, Thank you.

[Plasmatic]

We must add Jacobs claim that "the ability to lack a power is not a power" (paraphrased) Jacob did you get to read bluecherrys post ?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Plasmatic

[chuff]

The metaphysical basis of Objectivism, as I interpret it, is that reality is not subject to consciousness -- any consciousness. Not subject to consciousness = not subjective = Objective.

If we tacitly accept this god hypothesis (for which there is no need, once we recognize that reality has always been and will always be), we must also accept that any semblance of stability or coherence in reality is because this god's consciousness hasn't altered it yet. Which means he is making it look like reality has immutable laws, when under this worldview it doesn't, and he's only made it out to look that way, which is intentionally (you could say volitionally) deceptive.

Implicit in this hypothesis is that if this god wanted to make rocks fall up tomorrow, he could. It is the primacy of consciousness, just not a human consciousness. If this is not implicit in the god hypothesis, then what use does he serve? (I echo someone earlier in this thread, Of what use is this entity?)

If an entity that has always been is not inconceivable for you, why then cannot the sum of them have always been? Whence comes the need to push the process back one step further as the Branden essay says?

Causation doesn't "originate" from anywhere or from anyone. It is inherent in the nature of reality, and of entities and actions as such (see OPAR chapter 1 for review on this topic). "Where did the universe (or its laws, aka governing entites and actions, ie causation) come from?" is not a valid question to start with.

When the proposition of god is accepted, I don't see where or why any respect for non-contradiction should come into play. The primacy of (God's) consciousness entails that he can create a contradiction if he wants. After all, in this paradigm, out of "nothing" he created the apparent need to be non-contradictory in order to exist.

edited to add:

In other words, since you already understand that existence (the universe) exists, what is there for this god to need to have created?

Edited June 27, 2011 by chuff

[Avila]

The metaphysical basis of Objectivism, as I interpret it, is that reality is not subject to consciousness -- any consciousness.

This has been an interesting thread to read. It's made me think a great deal about assumptions I have made over the years. In reading Jacob's posts on this thread, I think that you're missing something here: yes, reality is not subject to human consciousness, but since human consciousness is all that Objectivism allows, it does not -- cannot -- address the fundamental creation of reality. Reality in and of itself - A is A - is addressed by Objectivism, but it does not address its ultimate creation. I just don't think Objectivism has the answer here. As a philosophy, it simply can't, as it has set finite limits to reality (observable reality) and doesn't have much to say about its origins. Saying "it's always been there" doesn't really satisfy.

f we tacitly accept this god hypothesis (for which there is no need, once we recognize that reality has always been and will always be), we must also accept that any semblance of stability or coherence in reality is because this god's consciousness hasn't altered it yet.

You start out OK here, for the first six words, but then you assert that there is no need for this hypothesis. It doesn't appear, then, as an honest attempt to engage the argument. I mean, you're already finding it necessary to blow the hypothesis away, not by argument, but by saying it's not necessary. Your arguments should be able to stand on their own, without a defensive "We'll tacitly accept...but we don't need to because...". I'm intrigued, for example, with the origin of observable reality: how do you know that it has always been and will always be? And is "reality" synonomous with "the material universe"? Would that be reasonable? My understanding is that, if so, the universe has NOT always existed, nor is it infinite. You say that reality has always existed, but if reality is synonomous with, or at least corresponds to, the material universe, then it hasn't always existed. If you disagree, then I'd like to know what you envision reality separate from the universe looks like. And isn't it just as possible that it need not have existed? If it does (and obviously it does), why? Again, I just don't think Objectivism is equipped to address these questions, as it addresses only observable reality and is not able to speculate beyond that to the origins of observable reality.

Causation doesn't "originate" from anywhere or from anyone

This just seems to defy all data from observable reality. Causation involves agents who cause. How could you even use the term "causation", if you're divorcing it from agents? I hope you'll explain yourself here.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Avila

[RationalBiker]

This has been an interesting thread to read. It's made me think a great deal about assumptions I have made over the years. In reading Jacob's posts on this thread, I think that you're missing something here: yes, reality is not subject to human consciousness, but since human consciousness is all that Objectivism allows, it does not -- cannot -- address the fundamental creation of reality. Reality in and of itself - A is A - is addressed by Objectivism, but it does not address its ultimate creation.

What it does address is that from an epistemological point of view there is no point in entertaining arbitrary claims. Nothing can be learned about the existence or lack of existence of something UNLESS there is evidence presented to consider that claim. No evidence has been presented that a god or gods exist.

Objectivism does not need to posit what the ultimate creation was in order to point out the only epistemological tools you have available to you for trying to figure out what that ultimate creation was.

[Avila]

What it does address is that from an epistemological point of view there is no point in entertaining arbitrary claims. Nothing can be learned about the existence or lack of existence of something UNLESS there is evidence presented to consider that claim. No evidence has been presented that a god or gods exist.

Objectivism does not need to posit what the ultimate creation was in order to point out the only epistemological tools you have available to you for trying to figure out what that ultimate creation was.

I think we agree that Objectivism is not equipped towards answering the whys and hows of the creation of the universe. That's not a criticism of Objectivism, merely an observation. But I disagree that "No evidence has been presented that a god or gods exist" -- I find Aquinas's "proofs" to be quite rational. A person might not agree with his conclusions, but they're hardly arbitrary.

[Greebo]

Hardly arbitrary... are you sure about that?

Consider his contingency proof - he's arbitrarily declaring that an eternal nature of existence is impossible - and declaring that it must have come from somewhere, and thus it must have come from a god being:

"Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity."

We could equally postulate that existence itself exists of its own necessity - so he's arbitrarily dropped that possibility.