Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

What are you talking about? Jacob86 hasn't said anything about "energy" or "god particles". His view is that there must be a disembodied, non-physical consciousness possessing volition, which acted on matter somehow (thus far, no how), which explains how motion began in the universe. There are highly distinguished astrophysicists who beg to differ, if he chooses to explore the subject.

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

I've written the only other reply to his post, you interpreted it as a concession?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ninth Doctor:

What are you talking about? Jacob86 hasn't said anything about "energy" or "god particles

I'm not talking about Jacob. You've misunderstood my question. Various posters have responded to Jacobs question of a "first cause" as necessary with an alternative "cause". (the god particle nonsense was in another thread)

There are highly distinguished astrophysicists who beg to differ, if he chooses to explore the subject.

Such theories are an alternative for some to Jacobs claim that there "must be a first cause". My question is are there any besides me who reject this position (a first cause of motion) as necessary.

Most have claimed Jacob is asking for a cause of existence as such. He is not. I'm rejecting the actual claim the an eternality of bounded particulars interacting dynamically is necessarily impossible and therefore a first cause of motion is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm rejecting the actual claim the an eternality of bounded particulars interacting dynamically is necessarily impossible and therefore a first cause of motion is necessary.

As Krauss (and Hawking etc.) notes, there is a wall of separation when we look at the big bang. Information from the prior state does not communicate forward, so there is nothing to observe. This always makes me think of the Jorge Luis Borges short story, The Wall and the Books, but that’s a tangent for another time. It may be that an answer to what came before (and caused) the big bang will be proven, but I don’t mind resting my case by noting that we don’t know, may never know, and that grants no one license to start making shit up. I’d love to see how Jacob86 logically gets from a disembodied consciousness, acting by no definable means to get stuff started, to a celestial tyrant who cares who we have sex with, for what reason, and in what position, issues commandments, sends his son to be tortured and executed, you know, the whole deal. He hasn’t identified himself as a Christian, he may very well be a Deist ala Paine and Franklin, so I’m being unfair. But, who’s to say the correct religion isn’t this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_99mcINufQ

I say they arrived at their doctrine by the same means the Abrahamic ones did. Fuck that.

EDIT: added "Fuck that", I dare say an appropriate emotional ejaculation given the subject.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject the entire edifice of BB cosmology and all it's high priest on both philosophical and special scientific grounds.

What special scientific grounds? Do you have an alternate explanation for the background radiation? The red shift? Are you in favor of a steady state model? I suppose this would call for a separate thread, but who have you been reading, that you’ve come to this view?

I object completely to the use of such special science theories in a philosophical discussion.

I refer to it because Jacob86 makes (pseudo-) scientific claims, so I refer him to distinguished scientists whose popular works I’ve read. Maybe he’ll check them out and learn something, change his mind, who knows? However, in an earlier post I said, in effect, that a person in the Bronze age or even a caveman would have been justified in rejecting his claims; I don’t regard the present level of scientific understanding as necessary to reject such unsupported assertions as he’s made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Plasmatic: I'm not sure how your proposal of eternally dynamic entities acting upon each other is any different than an infinite regress. It just a more complex regress.

@ Ninth-Doctor: Who said anything about God tyrannically bossing around your sex life. Give the straw-men a break already. Your here debating ME-- not the stupid religionists that have annoyed you your whole life.

I know you haven't used the term "arbitrary" nearly as much as others on this forum, but you've suggested it by referring to my position as "God of the gaps" (i.e. arbitrarily deciding that God is the answer just because we don't know what the answer is). My argument is emphatically NOT that.

It is that a volitional actor is logically necessary since the absence of a volitional actor leads to contradictions. Contradictions do not exist, therefore if the only alternatives are "position A" and a contradiction, then "position A" is necessarily true.

THAT is the nature of my argument. If you want to have a debate, then debate ME, on MY actual argument. Challenge MY premises, or show how my conclusion does not follow from my premises. As Plasmatic has pointed out, special science details do not factor in. We are dealing with Philosophy and logic here, not physics. There will never be any contradictions in Physics. I am arguing that any and all models proposed by physicists which do not include a volitional actor are contradictions. I don't need to know all the details of their models-- that's sort of the nature of Philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: As I re-read your question, I realized that you might have been emphasizing a different aspect and I wanted to address it real quick. Were you asking "why does something which moves itself have to be an intelligent being?"

The answer is because to "move one's self" apart from the causal influence of anything else is to move by volition. And to have volition is to have an intelligent faculty by which to grasp alternatives (move or don't move) and a valuing faculty by which to choose (move, rather than not move) which give rise to the volitional movement.

The biggest problem with this argument is that volition, as has been observed in living things available to us, is in many ways dependent on physical motions. You would have to ask... "What caused the volition"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure do, but I don't come here to discuss this special science. If your interested we can discuss it at another forum on the topic.

Well then post a link, or IM me. I have to say, now of course I don’t know you and haven’t yet formed an impression, but still I’m worried it’s got to be some real crackpot stuff. The big bang isn't a politicized theory like global warming.

@ Ninth-Doctor: Who said anything about God tyrannically bossing around your sex life. Give the straw-men a break already. Your here debating ME-- not the stupid religionists that have annoyed you your whole life.

I wrote this:

He hasn’t identified himself as a Christian, he may very well be a Deist ala Paine and Franklin, so I’m being unfair.

Not good enough? Note that this is a discussion thread, not a one on one debate. Lucky you, you get to eavesdrop on my asides to other posters. You didn't like the human sacrifice video? It sure gets the blood pumping, unlike a communion wafer.

As Plasmatic has pointed out, special science details do not factor in. We are dealing with Philosophy and logic here, not physics. There will never be any contradictions in Physics. I am arguing that any and all models proposed by physicists which do not include a volitional actor are contradictions. I don't need to know all the details of their models-- that's sort of the nature of Philosophy.

How is one to know what “motion” even is, without reference to physics? I must say I find this totally amazing, I mean you do realize that philosophy deals with facts, right? We know how the universe went from having no matter, to matter, then to matter in motion, do you dispute this? Crap, how can you know even that, if you won’t consider the subject of physics? This really is pointless, it’s like talking to a geocentricist who refuses to look into a telescope. Take it away, Dr. Feynman:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with this argument is that volition, as has been observed in living things available to us, is in many ways dependent on physical motions. You would have to ask... "What caused the volition"?

hmmm. I'm not sure if I follow. However, I think what you seem to be saying would eat away at the Objectivist view of volition. The only real "cause" of volition that I can think of (and I think most Objectivists would agree) is consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure do, but I don't come here to discuss this special science. If your interested we can discuss it at another forum on the topic.

It's relevance has nothing to do with what you came here to discuss. If the special sciences offer another examination of the topic at hand, there is no point in excluding that information from the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's relevance has nothing to do with what you came here to discuss. If the special sciences offer another examination of the topic at hand, there is no point in excluding that information from the thread.

Are you here meaning to say that I must engage in expressing my particular special science views if it has something to say about this topic? I'm not sure exactly how your comment relates to what I said in the quote otherwise..??? My comment was ONLY about MY participation here on special science topics. That is, I have no interest in discussing it here period. That is the only relevant "point" for me excluding it. You must mean something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you here meaning to say that I must engage in expressing my particular special science views if it has something to say about this topic? I'm not sure exactly how your comment relates to what I said in the quote otherwise..??? My comment was ONLY about MY participation here on special science topics. That is, I have no interest in discussing it here period. That is the only relevant "point" for me excluding it. You must mean something else.

Fair enough... Perhaps I misunderstood what you were communicating. However, given that you said the following, it was easy to misunderstand that you were suggesting it was not pertinent to the discussion.

I object completely to the use of such special science theories in a philosophical discussion.

Is there any reason aside from you desire not to discuss special science theories that you object to their discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is pointless, it’s like talking to a geocentricist who refuses to look into a telescope.

I was just thinking of the philosophers who rejected the Copernican view, pre-Newton, on the grounds that if the earth was rotating we’d all fly off. Obvious, right? They didn’t have to look at data, or peer into a telescope, no-no they could rule out this crazed upstart’s idea by means of “philosophy”. Meaning, dopey ideas about physics arrived at without reference to observation and testing.

Example: Libertus Fromundus, a contemporary of Galileo, critiquing the Copernican model, claimed “buildings and the earth itself would fly off with such a rapid motion that men would have to be provided with claws like cats to enable them to hold fast to the earth's surface.” And the same author wrote: “If the earth is a planet, and only one among several, it can not be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace back their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?” One wonders if he was open to data that would contradict the first quote, given his commitment to the ideas of the second.

It's a shame Dr. Feynman was incorrect in his conclusion here:

hmmm. I'm not sure if I follow. However, I think what you seem to be saying would eat away at the Objectivist view of volition. The only real "cause" of volition that I can think of (and I think most Objectivists would agree) is consciousness.

Someone's explained Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness to you, I hope. I gather you've been debating god(s) here for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm. I'm not sure if I follow. However, I think what you seem to be saying would eat away at the Objectivist view of volition. The only real "cause" of volition that I can think of (and I think most Objectivists would agree) is consciousness.

From what I remember, "Consciousness" is only the second properly basic/axiom of Objectivism. I have been studying Ayn Rand for about a year and a half now, and I've yet to come across anything that says that consciousness can't be magnified to chemical or physical reactions.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rational Biker :

Is there any reason aside from you desire not to discuss special science theories that you object to their discussion?

Assuming that you meant "discussion" in a philosophical topic:

Yes, because a truly philosophical topic can in no way be determined by a special science. A philosophical topics content is ubiquitously available to all men. If a special science theory has something to say about a topic than it cant be a philosophical topic as such. In this sense Jacob is right that IF it where "necessary" in the philosophical sense that a prime mover exists than no special science could exclude that and be correct. (that is NOT a concession to be clear)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because a truly philosophical topic can in no way be determined by a special science. A philosophical topics content is ubiquitously available to all men.

But it seems to me that limiting the discussion to strictly a philosophical debate may well inhibit the truth if science does have something to contribute to the subject. I personally could care less about handcuffing the truth (if that is where the science leads) just for the sake of keeping the discussion on a philosophical level.

Vroomfondel: Oh. We don’t demand solid fact! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts! I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because a truly philosophical topic can in no way be determined by a special science. A philosophical topics content is ubiquitously available to all men.

For Galileo to convince Aristotle that he was wrong about heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones, how could he do it except by demonstration? For Kepler to convince Aristarchus that planetary orbits are elliptical, instead of more philosophically pleasing circles, how would he do it without reference to facts? He needed decades worth of observational data to figure it out for himself. He went into it with a philosophical (even mystical) expectation of what the answer was going to be (something about the perfect solids), and found that that isn’t how it is.

If a special science theory has something to say about a topic than it cant be a philosophical topic as such.

I must confess I don't understand what distinction you make by adding the adjective "special".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it seems to me that limiting the discussion to strictly a philosophical debate may well inhibit the truth if science does have something to contribute to the subject.

Your begging the question. By the nature of what a philosophical topic is it does not need a non ubiquitous observation to answer it. If it requires a non ubiquitous observation not available to all men then its not a philosophical topic. Either the question of a first mover or an explanation for the "origin" of motion [particularly concerning the validity of that particular question] is philosophical in nature or its not. A is A.

RB:

I personally could care less about handcuffing the truth (if that is where the science leads) just for the sake of keeping the discussion on a philosophical level.

Rather than unfetter the truth you have "handcuffed" yourself to a strawman while begging the question. Philosophical topics stay on a philosophical level. Cosmological questions remain within their domain of applicability as well. This does not sever the unity of philosophical knowledge with particular, non-general knowledge however.

RB:

Vroomfondel: Oh. We don’t demand solid fact! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts! I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel.

You've cuffed another strawman and begged another question here. Nothing Ive said excludes either philosophy or cosmology from the realm of "solid facts"! Or is it that you think only cosmology/special sciences deal with solid facts? Besides as Ive said I don't consider the particular cosmological theories presented herein as facts anyway.

Can we move on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Galileo to convince Aristotle that he was wrong about heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones, how could he do it except by demonstration? For Kepler to convince Aristarchus that planetary orbits are elliptical, instead of more philosophically pleasing circles, how would he do it without reference to facts? He needed decades worth of observational data to figure it out for himself. He went into it with a philosophical (even mystical) expectation of what the answer was going to be (something about the perfect solids), and found that that isn’t how it is.

I must confess I don't understand what distinction you make by adding the adjective "special".

The bolded is probably why you dont understand anything Im saying. Perhaps you are also mistaken that philosophy doesn't deal with "facts". Or what is it I have I said that makes you think I believe that either the science of philosophy or cosmology doesnt deal with facts?

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.

PWNI

Edit: added quote.Changed "Idont think" to " I beleve that" for clarity.

If it should be asked, at this point: Who, then, is to keep order in the organization of man's conceptual vocabulary, suggest the changes or expansions of definitions, formulate the principles of cognition and the criteria of science, protect the objectivity of methods and of communications within and among the special sciences, and provide the guidelines for the integration of mankind's knowledge?—the answer is: philosophy. These, precisely, are the tasks of epistemology. The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the guardians and integrators of human knowledge.

This is the responsibility on which modern philosophy has not merely defaulted, but worse: which it has reversed. It has taken the lead in the disintegration and destruction of knowledge—and has all but committed suicide in the process.

Philosophy is the foundation of science; epistemology is the foundation of philosophy.

ITOE Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess I don't understand what distinction you make by adding the adjective "special".

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.

Ayn Rand

The bolded is probably why you dont understand anything Im saying.

It would be nice if she’d given an example of a special science. I say podiatry is a special science in the sense she seems to be using it. Motion, the basic laws of nature like conservation of energy, forces like gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear; these apply to “everything that exists”. Not that you need to study them in any great detail to discuss ethics or politics, but if someone’s making the claim that motion ultimately requires volition, the full answer is going to have to reference science, just as the original assertion does, however ineptly.

Perhaps you are also mistaken that philosophy doesn't deal with "facts". Or what is it I have I said that makes you think I believe that either the science of philosophy or cosmology doesnt deal with facts?

Oh brother, you’re really getting annoying.

I must say I find this totally amazing, I mean you do realize that philosophy deals with facts, right?

Bad philosophy doesn’t reference facts, how’s that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice if she’d given an example of a special science. I say podiatry is a special science in the sense she seems to be using it.

The quotes I gave don't exhaust her comments on the topic. If you want more info go find more. You'll find that the issue isn't that it pertains to everything that exist alone but ,as Ive stated,what is required for knowledge of the topic. If it requires non ubiquitous observations and technical knowledge derived therefrom its a special science.

ND:

Motion, the basic laws of nature like conservation of energy, forces like gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear; these apply to “everything that exists”.Not that you need to study them in any great detail to discuss ethics or politics, but if someone’s making the claim that motion ultimately requires volition, the full answer is going to have to reference science, just as the original assertion does, however ineptly.

You are equivocating here. One does not require knowledge of conserved energy or forces to know what the concept motion refers to. All one needs is self evident observation. But IF the origin of motion as such is a special science question than its not a philosophical question at all and we are in the wrong section of the forum and my point concerning the different domains stands.

Plasmatic, on 09 July 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:

Perhaps you are also mistaken that philosophy doesn't deal with "facts". Or what is it I have I said that makes you think I believe that either the science of philosophy or cosmology doesnt deal with facts?

Oh brother, you’re really getting annoying.

Ninth Doctor, on 08 July 2011 - 06:50 AM, said:

I must say I find this totally amazing, I mean you do realize that philosophy deals with facts, right?

The stricken quote should remedy my mistake of forgetting your earlier statement.

ND:

Bad philosophy doesn’t reference facts, how’s that?

Fine but irrelevant to anything Ive said. Unless your implying a philosophy that doesnt reference special science facts is bad. In which case your begging the question again.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your begging the question.

Making a qualified statement is not begging the question. You highlighted and underlined the if so you should have understood that. For ALL of the posters in the thread to be able to determine the applicability of the argument, other posters have to be able to advance their argument(s). Additionally, you still leave room for offering "special science" evidence to be forwarded when you qualified this statement;

In this sense Jacob is right that IF it where "necessary" in the philosophical sense that a prime mover exists than no special science could exclude that and be correct. (that is NOT a concession to be clear)

Philosophical topics stay on a philosophical level.

Unless science demonstrates that the philosophy is wrong.

You've cuffed another strawman and begged another question here.

No, actually what I did was inject a little humor in my post.

Can we move on?

Would it make a difference if I said "no"?

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are equivocating here. One does not require knowledge of conserved energy or forces to know what the concept motion refers to.

Equivocating? How pedantic can you get? It was a list, an incomplete and deliberately disparate list of physics concepts that apply to “everything that exists”, and not necessarily to motion. Though, glancing again at the examples, they do all apply to motion in one context or another. Small wonder there, that would be hard to avoid, motion is about as basic a concept as can be.

Does a toddler need to understand conservation of energy to form a rudimentary version of the concept “motion”? Of course not, but a philosopher better have graduated to a more sophisticated, informed, and integrated concept before pontificating about prime movers, first causes, “reactions” and “volition”.

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...