Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

None of this means that empirical data is useless. It simply means that empirical observation/testing/falsifying/verifying/etc.. cannot be considered the epistemological standard for all of truth. There must be other, more foundational epistemological criteria, or else nothing beyond the range of the moment (immediately perceived) can be known at all.

That's why Objectivism isn't empiricism. Valid ideas are based upon what is directly perceivable, and abstraction from there makes it possible to go beyond range of the moment thinking. Arbitrary comes in when you just throw in something into a line of reasoning that you came up with out of your own imagination. That includes a volitional consciousness before the existence of any brain in the history of existence. I already asked you this once before: What does god look like? If god doesn't look like anything, how does it interact with anything? How could a formless thing interact and get anything moving in the first place? I say imagination here because I literally cannot see where you get the idea that there can be a formless consciousness that can interact with the universe. If it has a form, well, that means in this instance there happens to be empirical evidence of god. Keep in mind that abstractions can be validly discussed, no one here should oppose that, but you are saying god is a THING - a volitional entity. Actual things have directly perceivable empirical evidence; you aren't even saying god is an abstract concept.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why Objectivism isn't empiricism. Valid ideas are based upon what is directly perceivable, and abstraction from there makes it possible to go beyond range of the moment thinking. Arbitrary comes in when you just throw in something into a line of reasoning that you came up with out of your own imagination.

Stop right there. Did the idea of an immovable mover come about by imagination or by a line of reasoning? Have I submitted my imagination or have I submitted a line of reasoning? I think you know the answer.

You claim not to be an empiricist and you do well in holding true to that until it comes to an issue you don't like. Everything else you said in your post assumed empiricism as an epistemology. "What does God look like?" as if not knowing negates His existence. "How is it possible for something without a physical brain to be conscious?" because I've never seen it happen, etc...

The problem, though, is that it is assumed rather than stated. That is why I have BEGGED repeatedly for someone to clearly STATE their epistemological standards and demonstrate how my actual position (not a straw-man) falls short of those standards. Don't just ask vague questions with approximate implications. Clearly and concisely state which epistemological laws I violate and where in my position.

State your standards, please. State them in a declarative sentence, in the open, so that they can be analyzed for validity and then clearly applied to my position.

Until someone does this, we are just playing games where the Atheists apply un-spoken, un-defined, un-known, and impossible to be followed epistemological laws.

I don't play that game in business. I don't play that game with the government. And I sure won't play it with philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Jacob I'm gonna start refreshing myself on our exchanges. Do you feel like reminding me of the relevant threads? I'm gonna search as well but it may speed me up.....

Well, there was obviously the "Argument for the existence of God" thread which sort of went all over the place. haha. Then there was the "Infinite Quantity" which I think was started by Aleph-0 but I would say the most relevant post in that one is at the very end concerning the impossible of an infinite quantity other than in the future. Then, I had a thread that I think was called "Integrating Volition" in which I elaborated more on my argument against Naturalism (the idea that only the physical universe exists), and then this one. I THINK that's all. lol. But if you have any specific questions about my position, Ill be happy to rehash whatever needs to be repeated for the sake of clarity, etc.. :) Night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop right there. Did the idea of an immovable mover come about by imagination or by a line of reasoning? Have I submitted my imagination or have I submitted a line of reasoning? I think you know the answer.

I just didn't want to try explaining again epistemological standards. I tried it once in a thread of yours, but the effort wasn't worth it. By the way, I do/did acknowledge your line of reasoning as a line of reasoning and not pure whim. I'm not necessarily even saying "never seen a consciousness without a brain, it can't happen!" What I AM saying is that by your own explanation, god as you understand it is either of a particular form and has a means to be detected, OR it is formless. If it is formless, I want to know how it interacts with anything physical. That's all I'm asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to empiricism. There are a few basic variants of empiricism which are easily dismissed.

Perhaps your standard is that "Only that which can be observed with sensory perception can be considered true"

Can you observe with sensory perception that that standard is accurate? No. It falls by it's own weight.

Would you agree with the statement: one can't prove reason by means of reason?

41634.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, its more like saying "A is A" even when we're talking about energy and I don't want to waste time.

It's both - A is A, and A is always A, but A has a context, and when the context changes, so does A, so...

Could you elaborate on what you mean here and on how it is relevant?

... so when you deal with the rationally grounded but speculative possibility of what may happen "before everything" (so to speak) you have to recognize that different rules may apply at fundamental levels. A is still A, but A is in Script instead of Courier Block.

So when I say "causality may not work the same in the earliest stages of existences current state of existence" I mean you NEED to consider how the rules work to understand what A is and what rules apply to it.

You've built an argument for God based on motion and in our current context, the rule that a motion must start either in a reactive or in a volitional sense is rational. A rock will not roll unless it either reacts to something else, to be certain. But you're then *dropping* that context and applying it universally at all levels of scale.

We know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but that reaction is a reaction to *force*. Force requires mass. Force = Mass * Acceleration and since A is A, ANY existent which has mass lives by that formula.

But when you go back to a point before which matter existed - when you go back to the point in time where matter did not exist - what you had was just energy. (Matter is, after all, cohesive energy). When you have no matter, you have no mass. When you have no mass, you have no force, and when you have no force, you have no actions and no reactions. Bye bye Newton's Laws. No inertia, no acceleration, no equal and opposite reactions.

You can not pick up a rule which applies to entities which have mass and drop it in a context where there is no mass and require that context to behave the same way.

If you ask this straw-man question again, I will ignore it. We are both in agreement that SOMETHING eternal is necessitated. We are not debating that. We are debating the NATURE of that eternal thing (volitional or not). What you have written below would have sufficed.

I will continue to point out the logical paradox of infinite causal requirement as long as you keep positing that something else must have created existence. That isn't a straw man -

Yes, it is equally necessary for there to have been eternal energy. This begs the question though- energy of what?

No it doesn't. Energy is mutable. Energy can be heat, motion, kinetic, potential, electromagnetic, and so forth. Energy is transferable. In relation to physical objects, there are rules about how energy transforms and transfers, but all of those rules are bound to mass. Where no mass exists (such as prior to around 400,000 years following the big bang (or big whoosh)) we don't know what those rules were, though we do know that there was too much energy in the limited space that existed for matter to form, and that energy was pretty evenly distributed throughout space at the time.

And when the state of the energy was altered (in whatever form and by whatever means you wish to posit), was this alteration a result of some prior event (for which another causal explanation is required) or was it volitional?

Or, possibly, was it simply spontaneous? If energy must be eternal and can exist in a matter-less state where the conventional rules don't apply we cannot say what causality rules existed (but we're working on it).

You see, I am not saying "God was necessary for the first action... just because". I am saying a VOLITIONAL action must have been the first action (because A is A) and therefore God (a volitional being) was necessary.

Remember that in science, when you encounter a phenomenon that doesn't conform to your rules and thus you require some new entity to explain why the existing rules don't work, you have two possible situations:

1) You are right, the rules are right, but there is something new needed to explain the situation; (God) or

2) The rules are wrong. (There's no mass, so rules which work on mass don't work in that context)

When the nature of reality contradicts the rules, it's reality that wins, not the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just didn't want to try explaining again epistemological standards. I tried it once in a thread of yours, but the effort wasn't worth it. By the way, I do/did acknowledge your line of reasoning as a line of reasoning and not pure whim. I'm not necessarily even saying "never seen a consciousness without a brain, it can't happen!" What I AM saying is that by your own explanation, god as you understand it is either of a particular form and has a means to be detected, OR it is formless. If it is formless, I want to know how it interacts with anything physical. That's all I'm asking.

That's fine, but you are jumping about 10 steps ahead. I personally do hold that God has no physical form, and this does indeed lead to some confusion about how He might interact with a physical world, but I am not attempting to address that (and the many other issues of possible confusion) right now.

Before we discussed that, it would need to be established that God is without physical form (and it would probably also need to be established that He created physical matter), but before we can establish any of these facts about God, we need to establish that He exists. To go on speculating about His attributes and His interactions with other entities without first establishing His existence would be quite a pointless waist of time - somewhat reminiscent of debating Capitalism with someone who does not believe that A is A or that Man is capable of consciousness.

Incidentally, Greebo's latest post/theory about energy (without physical form) creating physical matter might seem to shed some light on this issue. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you agree with the statement: one can't prove reason by means of reason?

41634.jpg

If by "prove" you mean "demonstrate/establish the validity of" and if by "reason" you mean the general processes of logic, then I absolutely would NOT agree with this statement- it would negate all knowledge and reason. Logic is axiomatic, not circular. Therefore, the validity of reason (the use of logic) is axiomatic, not circular.

Do you mean to imply that that there is some other method by which reason may be "proven"? Or do you mean to imply that reason is impotent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's both - A is A, and A is always A, but A has a context, and when the context changes, so does A, so...

... so when you deal with the rationally grounded but speculative possibility of what may happen "before everything" (so to speak) you have to recognize that different rules may apply at fundamental levels. A is still A, but A is in Script instead of Courier Block.

So when I say "causality may not work the same in the earliest stages of existences current state of existence" I mean you NEED to consider how the rules work to understand what A is and what rules apply to it.

You've built an argument for God based on motion and in our current context, the rule that a motion must start either in a reactive or in a volitional sense is rational. A rock will not roll unless it either reacts to something else, to be certain. But you're then *dropping* that context and applying it universally at all levels of scale.

We know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but that reaction is a reaction to *force*. Force requires mass. Force = Mass * Acceleration and since A is A, ANY existent which has mass lives by that formula.

But when you go back to a point before which matter existed - when you go back to the point in time where matter did not exist - what you had was just energy. (Matter is, after all, cohesive energy). When you have no matter, you have no mass. When you have no mass, you have no force, and when you have no force, you have no actions and no reactions. Bye bye Newton's Laws. No inertia, no acceleration, no equal and opposite reactions.

You can not pick up a rule which applies to entities which have mass and drop it in a context where there is no mass and require that context to behave the same way.

I will continue to point out the logical paradox of infinite causal requirement as long as you keep positing that something else must have created existence. That isn't a straw man -

No it doesn't. Energy is mutable. Energy can be heat, motion, kinetic, potential, electromagnetic, and so forth. Energy is transferable. In relation to physical objects, there are rules about how energy transforms and transfers, but all of those rules are bound to mass. Where no mass exists (such as prior to around 400,000 years following the big bang (or big whoosh)) we don't know what those rules were, though we do know that there was too much energy in the limited space that existed for matter to form, and that energy was pretty evenly distributed throughout space at the time.

Or, possibly, was it simply spontaneous? If energy must be eternal and can exist in a matter-less state where the conventional rules don't apply we cannot say what causality rules existed (but we're working on it).

Remember that in science, when you encounter a phenomenon that doesn't conform to your rules and thus you require some new entity to explain why the existing rules don't work, you have two possible situations:

1) You are right, the rules are right, but there is something new needed to explain the situation; (God) or

2) The rules are wrong. (There's no mass, so rules which work on mass don't work in that context)

When the nature of reality contradicts the rules, it's reality that wins, not the rules.

Probably to your surprise, I completely agree with you about the need to consider context when discussing established rules. The rules you are speaking of are special science rules (involving physics mostly). I agree that those rules of physics would not and probably did not apply in a different context. It's funny though, because this is usually an issue which atheistic scientists wish to avoid at all costs.

However, I think you have misunderstood my argument. I have not argued that my conclusion is necessary based on the current laws of physics. In fact, I have been very careful not to mention the current laws of physics for the very reasons which you have listed above (the fact that they don't apply to this discussion in the same way they would if we were discussing something else, because of the context). It seems that you are just now coming around to agreeing with me that this issue cannot be answered by the special sciences (something which Plasmatic has rightfully pointed out a few times).

Or, possibly, was it simply spontaneous? If energy must be eternal and can exist in a matter-less state where the conventional rules don't apply we cannot say what causality rules existed (but we're working on it).

We may not know what special scientific rules apply, but we do know which philosophical ones apply. An entity can only act according to its nature.

This is why I have insisted that we stick to those things which necessarily remain constant in any context (i.e. the laws of identity & causality).

No matter what context we are speaking of, an entity (whether matter OR energy) can only act according to its nature. There are only two possible types of nature in respect to action: that which is a response to prior action and that which is not a response to prior action; that which reacts and that which acts on its own; that which reacts and that which chooses to act.

Your appeal to it possibly being "spontaneous" is somewhat of a cop-out. Spontaneous means without any known cause or without an intended cause- it does not mean without a cause at all. Any "spontaneous" event (just like all events) will have a cause- and that cause will ultimately be owing to prior action or to the volitional nature of the actor.

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably to your surprise, I completely agree with you about the need to consider context when discussing established rules. The rules you are speaking of are special science rules (involving physics mostly). I agree that those rules of physics would not and probably did not apply in a different context. It's funny though, because this is usually an issue which atheistic scientists wish to avoid at all costs.

However, I think you have misunderstood my argument. I have not argued that my conclusion is necessary based on the current laws of physics. In fact, I have been very careful not to mention the current laws of physics for the very reasons which you have listed above (the fact that they don't apply to this discussion in the same way they would if we were discussing something else, because of the context). It seems that you are just now coming around to agreeing with me that this issue cannot be answered by the special sciences (something which Plasmatic has rightfully pointed out a few times).

I don't believe I ever asserted otherwise - but at the same time, as I said, if reality and the rules being used to define it disagree, reality wins. If a philosophical premise (the rules) contract established science (reality) - the philosophy is wrong.

We may not know what special scientific rules apply, but we do know which philosophical ones apply. An entity can only act according to its nature.

This is why I have insisted that we stick to those things which necessarily remain constant in any context (i.e. the laws of identity & causality).

No matter what context we are speaking of, an entity (whether matter OR energy) can only act according to its nature. There are only two possible types of nature in respect to action: that which is a response to prior action and that which is not a response to prior action; that which reacts and that which acts on its own; that which reacts and that which chooses to act.

What would you call Gravity? It's not an action - it's a force. It's not a response to matter, it's a property of matter, but it acts on other matter, no matter (no pun intended) how far away. It causes a reaction without itself being an action. This being possible, your claim (which I have stated before is unproven and thus itself also arbitrary) that action must either be reactive or volitional is dubious at best.

Your appeal to it possibly being "spontaneous" is somewhat of a cop-out. Spontaneous means without any known cause or without an intended cause- it does not mean without a cause at all. Any "spontaneous" event (just like all events) will have a cause- and that cause will ultimately be owing to prior action or to the volitional nature of the actor.

No more than your appeal to God to solve the dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by "prove" you mean "demonstrate/establish the validity of" and if by "reason" you mean the general processes of logic, then I absolutely would NOT agree with this statement- it would negate all knowledge and reason. Logic is axiomatic, not circular. Therefore, the validity of reason (the use of logic) is axiomatic, not circular.

So you don't agree that you can use reason to prove reason, and as proof of your disagreement, you demonstrate that reason (the ordered process of logical argument based on established premises) can't be proved?

Reason cannot be proved by reason because it is axiomatic. To PROVE something you must base it on valid, established premises. To prove or disprove reason you must USE reason, which means you are basing a conclusion on a begged question, which isn't a valid logical proof.

That which is axiomatic isn't *proved*, it is self-evident and impossible to demonstrate OR contradict without it's own use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by "prove" you mean "demonstrate/establish the validity of" and if by "reason" you mean the general processes of logic, then I absolutely would NOT agree with this statement- it would negate all knowledge and reason.

You define Reason as “the general processes of logic”? What gets processed? Here’s Ayn Rand’s definition: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

Do you mean to imply that that there is some other method by which reason may be "proven"? Or do you mean to imply that reason is impotent?

No. I’m using the Socratic method. This is a discussion forum, after all.

before we can establish any of these facts about God, we need to establish that He exists. To go on speculating about His attributes and His interactions with other entities without first establishing His existence would be quite a pointless waist of time - somewhat reminiscent of debating Capitalism with someone who does not believe that A is A or that Man is capable of consciousness.

How do we establish “He exists” when we don’t know anything about the key attribute that would allow us to demonstrate it? You’re claiming a disembodied consciousness, or “volition” can affect matter, so how, where, and when? Otherwise, what explanatory power does your God have? No one can disprove that there’s such an entity or force, but it’s just like Sagan’s dragon in the garage, breathing heatless fire. Ultimately there’s no difference between an undetectable dragon and no dragon at all.

I say that you’re using the old notion of a necessary being, which ultimately amounts to a God of the Gaps*, to claim license to just make stuff up. And you seem to have no knowledge of physics, particularly modern astrophysics, which one really should study before making the cosmological argument, don’t you think? To find out if there really is a gap, and if so, where it is? Stephen Hawking’s latest, The Grand Design, repeatedly rejects the notion of a necessary being. Lawrence Krauss is basically on the same page, and you can get the essence of the data and reasoning in an hour, I embedded his talk earlier. They differ in that Krauss derides string theory for its lack of testable predictions and falsifiability; while Hawking acknowledges this weakness, he still uses it as a springboard for various speculations that aren’t relevant here.

I should mention that neither of them make Objectivism-specific arguments, Objectivism would be consistent with the steady-state model, if that were where the data led.

* Example:

The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolv’d about the Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets. But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions…This most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.

Isaac Newton,
Principia Mathematica
, Book III, General Scholium

Newton couldn’t conceive of how an orderly solar system could form, so it had to be the work of God. Classic God of the Gaps reasoning. Why don’t theists use this particular argument anymore? Why don’t they cite Newton in their favor? Easy, because 300 years later we know how solar systems form. Undaunted, theists move on to the latest frontier of science issues, and find God there. Except the really lame-brained ones, who don’t bother learning why tides come in and out before running their mouths.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't agree that you can use reason to prove reason, and as proof of your disagreement, you demonstrate that reason (the ordered process of logical argument based on established premises) can't be proved?

Reason cannot be proved by reason because it is axiomatic. To PROVE something you must base it on valid, established premises. To prove or disprove reason you must USE reason, which means you are basing a conclusion on a begged question, which isn't a valid logical proof.

That which is axiomatic isn't *proved*, it is self-evident and impossible to demonstrate OR contradict without it's own use.

Relax, Greebo. I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here. That's why I was careful to ask what he meant by "prove" and in my response I included "demonstrating" the validity of reason as a possible meaning of "prove". I understand that in the strict sense of "prove" that reason is not proved because it is axiomatic.

I wanted to emphasize that we do know that reason is valid because we grasp (by reason) that it is axiomatic and that an axiom is necessarily true. I was using "demonstrate" loosely to mean "showing to someone else why it is valid".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe I ever asserted otherwise - but at the same time, as I said, if reality and the rules being used to define it disagree, reality wins. If a philosophical premise (the rules) contract established science (reality) - the philosophy is wrong.

I agree that reality wins and that when reality contradicts established or accepted premises, it is the premises which need to be altered.

However I think the emboldened part is an important point of difference.

You seem to equate established science (i.e. empirical observation) with reality and philosophy with speculative rules. This may be the case in regard to SOME philosophical premises, but not in all. If science discovers something which it THINKS is a contradiction, the philosophical premise of "A is A" should NOT be altered. Rather, the scientists interpretation and understanding of the phenomena is what needs to be altered. Remember that strict scientific inquiry only gathers empirical data. It is up to philosophy to integrate and interpret that data accordingly. If the interpretation of that data contradicts a necessary philosophical/logical law -NOT a special science law like the laws of inertia- but a logical law like the law of identity, it is the interpretation, not the law, which must be altered.

What would you call Gravity? It's not an action - it's a force. It's not a response to matter, it's a property of matter, but it acts on other matter, no matter (no pun intended) how far away. It causes a reaction without itself being an action. This being possible, your claim (which I have stated before is unproven and thus itself also arbitrary) that action must either be reactive or volitional is dubious at best.

But the action caused by gravitation force MUST be an action in response to prior action because gravity only acts on one or more objects with some distance between them (agreed, the distance doesn't matter). If gravity is eternal and the objects proposed are also eternal, then they would have been eternally together--never separate and therefore never able to be attracted to each other by gravitational force. Gravity is only possible in a system where some action has already taken place (i.e. where some objects have been separated by some distance by means of some force other than gravity). If no other acting force ever exerted itself, gravity would have held all the objects together forever and no action as a result of gravitation force would have ever occurred.

No more than your appeal to God to solve the dilemma.

No, saying "spontaneous" implies no cause (that A is not A).

Saying God implies a volitional cause.

One is a contradiction. The other is merely counter-intuitive.

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, Greebo's latest post/theory about energy (without physical form) creating physical matter might seem to shed some light on this issue. ;)

I'm not even saying that god has to be made up of matter. If I were into physics, I probably could actually discuss theories about the universe. You could definitely say "energy was first, then that formed matter", but you would be saying that god is detectable, in addition to having at least a hypothesis of what to look for. You aren't claiming that better measurements need to be taken; you're not even saying that god is observable. Ninth Doctor said basically anything else I have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that reality wins and that when reality contradicts established or accepted premises, it is the premises which need to be altered.

However I think the emboldened part is an important point of difference.

You seem to equate established science (i.e. empirical observation) with reality and philosophy with speculative rules. This may be the case in regard to SOME philosophical premises, but not in all. If science discovers something which it THINKS is a contradiction, the philosophical premise of "A is A" should NOT be altered. Rather, the scientists interpretation and understanding of the phenomena is what needs to be altered. Remember that strict scientific inquiry only gathers empirical data. It is up to philosophy to integrate and interpret that data accordingly. If the interpretation of that data contradicts a necessary philosophical/logical law -NOT a special science law like the laws of inertia- but a logical law like the law of identity, it is the interpretation, not the law, which must be altered.

We're in agreement so far - but I would point out that scientists who attempt to break the fundamental rule of A is A are generally considered kooks. When I say established science, I mean science that, in a given context is proven. The 5 pound hammer and the 5 pound feathers on the moon will always fall at the same rate. Hydrogen and Oxygen will always be able to be combined into water via combustion at 72F and broken apart again via electric charge at 72F. Those are established, and any philosophy which attempts to rewrite THAT is flat out wrong.

But the action caused by gravitation force MUST be an action in response to prior action because gravity only acts on one or more objects with some distance between them

The action caused by gravitational force is a re-action to gravity, yes. Gravity itself is not a reaction to anything. The gravity of an object exists whether or not there is something else there to act upon.

(agreed, the distance doesn't matter). If gravity is eternal and the objects proposed are also eternal,

I never said the objects are eternal, or that gravity is eternal. Stop there. ENERGY is eternal. Matter is not.

Gravity doesn't exist where matter doesn't exist, and matter didn't exist 400k years after the big bang. It was simply too hot. Based on the big bang theory, basic matter forms because sufficient energy in a non corporeal state exists in a large enough volume that the temperature in that space wouldn't immediately destroy the matter. So - one second there's no matter, just lots and lots of energy in an expanding space, and the next second the universe has expanded and it's cooled down enough and now there's sub atomic particles and hydrogen and helium, and a few years later it cools down enough that gravity can start affecting their motion. You get stable atoms, then you get gravity, then you get motion. Indirectly the motion is a result of spatial expansion, and spatial expansion is probably the result of having all that energy in a singularity to begin with - but if energy is eternal, and has no speed limits when there's no matter (as demonstrated by the expansion of space itself) who's to say that eternal energy doesn't just shift around in completely random unpredictable patterns, or maybe when there is no matter it attracts itself, so that a singularity is inevitable, or one theory posits that black holes (which have near infinite heat) transfer raw energy into new bubble universes which then expand, start to cool and its all an endless cycle. If energy is eternal, it may go for immeasurable periods where there is no matter before a new big bang happens, all of this without any cause except it's own existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You define Reason as “the general processes of logic”? What gets processed? Here’s Ayn Rand’s definition: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

No. I’m using the Socratic method. This is a discussion forum, after all.

How do we establish “He exists” when we don’t know anything about the key attribute that would allow us to demonstrate it? You’re claiming a disembodied consciousness, or “volition” can affect matter, so how, where, and when? Otherwise, what explanatory power does your God have? No one can disprove that there’s such an entity or force, but it’s just like Sagan’s dragon in the garage, breathing heatless fire. Ultimately there’s no difference between an undetectable dragon and no dragon at all.

Once again, please state your epistemological premises which lead you to say that this is an "unprovable" issue. I am still waiting. You keep hinting at it, implying that there is some unspoken epistemological law that automatically makes my position arbitrary and I am eager to learn this law. Speak it. Put it in writing.

I say that you’re using the old notion of a necessary being, which ultimately amounts to a God of the Gaps*, to claim license to just make stuff up. And you seem to have no knowledge of physics, particularly modern astrophysics, which one really should study before making the cosmological argument, don’t you think? To find out if there really is a gap, and if so, where it is? Stephen Hawking’s latest, The Grand Design, repeatedly rejects the notion of a necessary being. Lawrence Krauss is basically on the same page, and you can get the essence of the data and reasoning in an hour, I embedded his talk earlier. They differ in that Krauss derides string theory for its lack of testable predictions and falsifiability; while Hawking acknowledges this weakness, he still uses it as a springboard for various speculations that aren’t relevant here.

I should mention that neither of them make Objectivism-specific arguments, Objectivism would be consistent with the steady-state model, if that were where the data led.

* Example:

The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolv’d about the Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets. But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions…This most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.

Isaac Newton,
Principia Mathematica
, Book III, General Scholium

Newton couldn’t conceive of how an orderly solar system could form, so it had to be the work of God. Classic God of the Gaps reasoning. Why don’t theists use this particular argument anymore? Why don’t they cite Newton in their favor? Easy, because 300 years later we know how solar systems form. Undaunted, theists move on to the latest frontier of science issues, and find God there. Except the really lame-brained ones, who don’t bother learning why tides come in and out before running their mouths.

Once again, the reason that you cannot see the difference between my argument here and the "God of the gaps" BS is because you have failed to carefully identify and analyze your own epistemological standards. Until your prepared to have a serious discussion about epistemology, this conversation cannot move forward.

Do you or do you not hold that empirical observation is the only way to tell whether something is true or false?

If yes, be ready to defend it.

If no, what other ways may someone be able to tell whether something is true or false? (*Hint, I use it in my argument)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, please state your epistemological premises which lead you to say that this is an "unprovable" issue. I am still waiting. You keep hinting at it, implying that there is some unspoken epistemological law that automatically makes my position arbitrary and I am eager to learn this law. Speak it. Put it in writing.

Epistemological premises? I provided Ayn Rand’s definition of Reason, and contrasted it with yours. Here it is again: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. You defined Reason as “the general processes of logic”, to which I asked: what gets processed? Do you see why I juxtaposed the two definitions?

I say you’re “making stuff up” when you claim there’s a disembodied consciousness (or volition) that affects matter, without providing any means of detecting it, an observable example of it, or even a mechanism by which it worked. Does this jibe with Rand’s definition of Reason? Do you have a better definition you’d like to put forward?

Once again, the reason that you cannot see the difference between my argument here and the "God of the gaps" BS is because you have failed to carefully identify and analyze your own epistemological standards.

I call the cosmological argument a species of God of the Gaps because it claims a necessary being in the face of what’s thought to be an unanswered scientific question, generally that question reduces to: why is there something rather than nothing? In your case you claim motion requires volition, then, tentatively it seemed, claimed that God created matter too. So I’m not entirely sure what you believe.

Until your prepared to have a serious discussion about epistemology, this conversation cannot move forward.

Maybe you should give an example of what format you mean. Syllogisms? Shall I imitate the style of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?

1 The world is all that is the case.think.gif

1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.duh.gif

1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.so.gif

1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.icon_stop.gif

1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.puke.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you or do you not hold that empirical observation is the only way to tell whether something is true or false?

If yes, be ready to defend it.

If no, what other ways may someone be able to tell whether something is true or false? (*Hint, I use it in my argument)

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

Ayn Rand

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

In my zeal to supply editorial cartoons to go alongside the Wittgenstein, I missed this part earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epistemological premises? I provided Ayn Rand’s definition of Reason, and contrasted it with yours. Here it is again: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. You defined Reason as “the general processes of logic”, to which I asked: what gets processed? Do you see why I juxtaposed the two definitions?

I say you’re “making stuff up” when you claim there’s a disembodied consciousness (or volition) that affects matter, without providing any means of detecting it, an observable example of it, or even a mechanism by which it worked. Does this jibe with Rand’s definition of Reason? Do you have a better definition you’d like to put forward?

I call the cosmological argument a species of God of the Gaps because it claims a necessary being in the face of what’s thought to be an unanswered scientific question, generally that question reduces to: why is there something rather than nothing? In your case you claim motion requires volition, then, tentatively it seemed, claimed that God created matter too. So I’m not entirely sure what you believe.

Maybe you should give an example of what format you mean. Syllogisms? Shall I imitate the style of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?

1 The world is all that is the case.think.gif

1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.duh.gif

1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.so.gif

1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.icon_stop.gif

1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.puke.gif

No. Nothing fancy. Just basic. Name your basic epistemological laws, define them, and demonstrate how I violate them. I say name and define; not illustrate with examples, because one (or even 300 examples) is too concrete. A principle or a law must be abstract enough to encompass all possibilities in that category and it must be specific enough not to include anything extra or irrelevant.

Examples:

"A proposition should be considered true if __________________________"

"A proposition should be considered arbitrary (neither true nor false given the information) if ________________________"

A proposition should be considered false if ___________________________"

You have made it obvious that empirical observation belongs in there, and you have hinted that reason belongs somewhere in there. But that is not helpful when determining if someone has violated a law (whether social or philosophical).

Incidentally, it might help if you worked out and defined the proper and improper uses of reason- again, not by examples and approximation, but by definition.

"It is proper to use reason in the following manner: ____________________________"

"It is improper to use reason in the following manner:___________________________"

This isn't just for ninth doctor. This is a request to any and all Objectivists.

If and when a person does this, I will ask that we examine the laws to make sure that 1) They do not fail their own standards, and 2) They are not violated in the rest of Objectivist Philosophy.

If all of that can be done, and these laws can clearly show how my position actually violates them, I will concede.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Nothing fancy. Just basic. Name your basic epistemological laws, define them, and demonstrate how I violate them. I say name and define; not illustrate with examples, because one (or even 300 examples) is too concrete. A principle or a law must be abstract enough to encompass all possibilities in that category and it must be specific enough not to include anything extra or irrelevant.

So, no Socratic method for you then. You ignore virtually everything I write. You say God of the Gaps is BS, I reply, you ignore. Name the standard I violated. Now, until someone produces a philosophical treatise geared to your every utterance (“Just basic” my ass), you will not “concede”. I’m not particularly invested in getting you to concede, if you were my child I suppose I’d still be motivated, but you’re just some Jacob out there on the internet.

siwoti-cat.png

You realize that authors such as Ayn Rand, David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden etc. each labored for years, working full time, to produce books and essays with carefully worded formulations geared to meet the highest standards of clarity? Am I to produce my own just for you, gratis and on the fly, or can I quote, and refer you elsewhere for further reading? Again, do you have an objection to Ayn Rand’s definition of Reason? Have you taken the time to watch Lawrence Krauss’s lecture on the latest scientific theory and data? Here it is again:

Anyway, I’m afraid I don’t recall what your original assertion was, can you restate it, and be sure to do so according to the standards you would hold Objectivists to? Or a link, if you feel you’ve already done this. You were offering a version of the first cause cosmological argument, with something about motion and volition mixed in there, so maybe you should take the time to read this very brief piece by Nathaniel Branden, so you’ll be ready for the objections people will surely raise here, this being an Objectivist discussion forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no Socratic method for you then. You ignore virtually everything I write. You say God of the Gaps is BS, I reply, you ignore. Name the standard I violated. Now, until someone produces a philosophical treatise geared to your every utterance (“Just basic” my ass), you will not “concede”. I’m not particularly invested in getting you to concede, if you were my child I suppose I’d still be motivated, but you’re just some Jacob out there on the internet.

You realize that authors such as Ayn Rand, David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden etc. each labored for years, working full time, to produce books and essays with carefully worded formulations geared to meet the highest standards of clarity? Am I to produce my own just for you, gratis and on the fly, or can I quote, and refer you elsewhere for further reading?

Of course. Have any of the above (or any Objectivist writers, for that matter) produced specific epistemological laws like what I suggested above?? If so, please refer me, or feel free to quote. From my interaction with Objectivist Literature, I have yet to find it. I have found a lot of anecdotal examples and illustrations of the un-named and un-defined epistemological laws of Objectivism, but I haven't found the laws themselves.

Do they even exist?

I mean, judging the validity of ideas sort of presupposes some sort of standard of validity. How can you or any other Objectivist (or any philosopher for that matter) hope to accurately judge the epistemological soundness of anything if there are no definite and objective standards by which to judge? How can you or anyone else speak so certainly about the errors in someone's position if you have no explicit standard by which to tell the erroneous from the factual?

This is why I say that the Objectivist usage of the term "arbitrary" is quite, well.... ARBITRARY. Give me a definition of arbitrary that is not, itself, arbitrary, and then perhaps we can determine whether my position is arbitrary or not. It doesn't have to be your own creation. It can be a quote or reference from anyone.

Anyway, I’m afraid I don’t recall what your original assertion was, can you restate it, and be sure to do so according to the standards you would hold Objectivists to? Or a link, if you feel you’ve already done this. You were offering a version of the first cause cosmological argument, with something about motion and volition mixed in there, so maybe you should take the time to read this very brief piece by Nathaniel Branden, so you’ll be ready for the objections people will surely raise here, this being an Objectivist discussion forum.

I'm familiar with that piece by Branden- just like I'm familiar with almost any and all variations of the same objections against the same stupid straw-men.

I do not hold that existence as such requires a cause (and neither has ANY serious Theistic Philosopher). I hold that motion/action requires causes which are either reactionary or volitional. An infinite regress of reactions is impossible. Therefore there must have been a volitional action which began motion in the universe.

That is a brief and specific summary of my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. Have any of the above (or any Objectivist writers, for that matter) produced specific epistemological laws like what I suggested above?? If so, please refer me, or feel free to quote. From my interaction with Objectivist Literature, I have yet to find it. I have found a lot of anecdotal examples and illustrations of the un-named and un-defined epistemological laws of Objectivism, but I haven't found the laws themselves.

I suggest you give this a try:

http://www.atlassociety.org/logical-structure-objectivism

Chapter 1 covers about everything that should come up in a god(s) debate.

This is why I say that the Objectivist usage of the term "arbitrary" is quite, well.... ARBITRARY. Give me a definition of arbitrary that is not, itself, arbitrary, and then perhaps we can determine whether my position is arbitrary or not. It doesn't have to be your own creation. It can be a quote or reference from anyone.

I try to be sparing in my use of the term “arbitrary”, so far I’ve only used it here:

Jacob86: You heavily imply that my inability to produce an empirical example of this phenomena [disembodied consciousness affecting matter no how] makes it automatically false.

The Doctor: I was thinking arbitrary, not false. “Not even wrong” is another way of putting it.

Arbitrary is a real conversation stopper among Objectivists. You’ll find it defined, with a few examples, in Leonard Peikoff’s OPAR, but I’m one of those Rand fans who avoids recommending that book.

I'm familiar with that piece by Branden- just like I'm familiar with almost any and all variations of the same objections against the same stupid straw-men.

I do not hold that existence as such requires a cause (and neither has ANY serious Theistic Philosopher).

Not according to Wikipedia. It reads like an honor roll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

I hold that motion/action requires causes which are either reactionary or volitional. An infinite regress of reactions is impossible. Therefore there must have been a volitional action which began motion in the universe.

That is a brief and specific summary of my position.

If that’s all there is to your claim, it has been answered scientifically. We know how the universe developed, when matter formed, and how and why its motion began. As Laplace might have said, regarding volition in this context, we have no need of that hypothesis. Now, if you were to ask what made the big bang happen, you’ll actually be identifying a real frontier of science question, and Krauss (also Hawking, etc.) provides an answer. Is he right? I really don’t know. But philosophically, I don’t need to know in order to dismiss your answer for being unsupported by evidence. Do I need to repeat myself about what kind of evidence would suffice to raise the bar? To at least make it debatable? Earlier, I cast a really wide net, or one might say that I gave you lots of rope to hang yourself with.

There’s something I wrote on another thread that belongs here, mutatis mutandis for this motion/volition business:

First, he assumes the “existence of the physical cosmos” needs explaining, and that this is the job of philosophy. Does this mean that a caveman, or a bronze age city-state dweller, had to accept theistic explanations for existence, lacking, as he was, any kind of alternate, scientific narrative? Or could/should he be what Michael Shermer amusingly calls a militant agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you! And is it so different today? We have explanations of a kind, but they’re incomplete. They may always be incomplete. That doesn’t give anyone license to just make shit up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not hold that existence as such requires a cause (and neither has ANY serious Theistic Philosopher). I hold that motion/action requires causes which are either reactionary or volitional. An infinite regress of reactions is impossible. Therefore there must have been a volitional action which began motion in the universe.

That is a brief and specific summary of my position.

Are all the posters in this thread comfortable with a concession to this claim? Am I the only one who rejects that an "alternative" to Jacobs claim in the form of "energy", or "god particles" etc. Is the only form of defense?Maintaining as it were that a "first cause" is unavoidable.

Edit: (switching simply the words but maintaining the same essential attributes of the theist.)

Does the idea that an eternality of multiple entities interacting dynamically is an invalid "infinite regress" seem true to all here?

Edited by Plasmatic
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...