Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Law of Identity and God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Yes, i aware of it. The problem is that theists forever stuck in the matter-spirit dichotomy [no, we simply make a distinction between the two while holding that they are compatible & complementary] . Objectivism doesn't recognize such a thing. Only existence exists and it includes everything-physical and spiritual. As everything else spiritual existents also have identity. Nothing can transcend existence or create it. If there is God, he also should be part of it.

I completely agree - as do the majority of serious philosophical theologians.

The "theist" who holds that God transcends existence (i.e. doesn't exist) is largely a strawman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Right. Your post about how a God no one ever saw or talked to is an almighty Egoist who is incapable of contradictions and created everything out of himself, is meant to demonstrate how out of touch w

I don't understand. The claim for a theist would be the God is one out of many. Why would him being something distinct from everything else make him not God? Also, how do you justify the claim that G

You assume that "benevolent" = "altruistic". Perhaps God is an Egoist and allows evil to exist as an instrumental means to satisfy a more ultimate purpose of enjoying and displaying Himself-- His bene

Jacob86 you tell us that what "God" is doing may seem illogical to us but is really logical ultimately if we were able to think on "his" level.

Who ever said anything about thinking "on His level"? You don't need to think on some mystical "higher level" in order to see that what He does is logical - you simply need to better understand what logic IS and what it ISN'T... and then understand what God has done and what He hasn't.

In other words, be able to distinguish between contradictions and anomalies, and be able to distinguish between legitimate philosophical theism and strawmen.

This being seems unknowable [why do you think that?] yet you speak of "his" existence and even claim "he" is the Christian God. This entity's actions may not make any senseto us and can alter reality at any time for an unkowable reason [whether it is currently known to us or not]. If this being can not be understood how can you assign the personality, moral codes, and the mythos surrounding the Christian God to it? It doesn't seem to follow that just because some super intelligent entity presides over our reality that this entity has any interest in humanity or even created the universe in the linear sense that the bible makes it out to be.

It actually follows very certainly, but that's a topic for a different thread (perhaps "Argument for the Existence of God" and I am currently writing on that subject (and a lot more) and will be happy to send you a copy the finished product when it's complete.

Objectivists associate conciousness with an organic being. It has been observed by biologists that certain creatures have different cognitive abilities and that most species haven't even developed anything close to what the higher mammals have. It has been argues by many intellectuals that the source of conciousness is the evolutionary process. Essentially our genetics replicate and the developement of conciousness allowed for those genese to replicate more. Conciousness promotes success in the world so it there is more of it. Conciousness is directly related to reproduction and survival.

"God", however is different than this somehow in that it seems to be just a conciousness that interacts with the universe in the same way a human mind acts on its body. However we have not seen any of sign that conciousness permeates the univeres. There are no gigantic nerve clusters or anything like that generating conciousness, nor transmiting its will throughout the universe.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. You seem to be describing a lot of stuff about consciousness --- but are you arguing that those things are essential to consciousness such that a being without a physical body could not have consciousness??

3) You say that "God" is completely logical. I don't see why this would be the case either. A God that created the universe created all the rules. Basically this being was just setting up an arbitrary experiment, one of many alternate sets of rules playing out in interesting way. A great way for an eternal being to spend its time. However, you make it sound as though this entity alread had all the rules inside of it, and that the material universe is just these rules playing out. [this is correct as opposed to the "arbitrary" view described in the first part of this section]

However if this is the case then I do not understand why this entity would be considered to have a personality with desires and ideas but rather just a force of nature (rather, the force of nature). Without the choice between an arbitrary universe and ours, I don't think that it can be said this being created anything at all because there were not choices involved. It is more like hair growing.

How can it said that this being has any personality, ethics, or desires at all?

The idea of "God" being completely logical seems to reduce to pantheism.

You seem to be saying that if God is logical and does not act against His nature (i.e. creates what He does because of who He is rather than arbitrarily), then He can't possibly have a personality. Does that mean that the essence of personality is acting against your nature? Would you accuse Galt of having little to no personality because he was so logical and always acting according to his nature???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree - as do the majority of serious philosophical theologians.

The "theist" who holds that God transcends existence (i.e. doesn't exist) is largely a strawman.

Well, that eliminates the notion of God-creator . Moreover if God is part of existence he has to have features and boundaries which distinguish him from other existents, in other words he has to obey the law of identity and causality. . That eliminates omnipotence, omnipresence and other divine attributes. Such a God is a well defined object like many others and has no religious significance whatsoever. He could be what you want, but he is not God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that eliminates the notion of God-creator .

Why is that??

If I may pre-empt your answer (for the sake of saving us both time), its because to you "God-creator" means "creator of all existence -- including HIM if He exists".

I don't know how many times I have to say that that is a straw man. Maybe this time it will stick though...

God created ALL OTHER EXISTENTS. He EXISTS (and is therefore "part" of existence) and created ALL OTHER existents -- all existents which are not Himself.

If that's unclear, please ask clarifying questions so I can try and make it more clear... if possible.

Moreover if God is part of existence he has to have features and boundaries which distinguish him from other existents [OR, other existents have to have boundaries which distinguish them from Him], in other words he has to obey the law of identity and causality. . That eliminates omnipotence, omnipresence and other divine attributes.

He absolutely must "obey" the laws of identity and causality!!... (which is just another way of saying "He must be Himself")

Why do you think that "eliminates omnipotence, omnipresence and other divine attributes"?

What is it about those attributes that creates/leads to a contradiction?

What is it about them that adds up to "A = ~A at the same time and in the same relationship"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to preface the rest of this post and say that I think we're getting ready to go in circles and I might better understand if you elaberate on this more. It might help if I understood your possition since I'm simply repeating mine.

I think that's a good idea... however I'm not sure which part you're wanting elaboration on. haha. So, I'm going to try and elaborate generally and if you'd like more specificity, please let me know. :)

My position (and the position of MUCH of philosophical Theism throughout the centuries -- especially pre-Kant) is that God cannot (and would not want to!) make "A = ~A"... He cannot commit contradictions. If He has performed any miracles, they are not contradictions because contradictions are inherently impossible - not just "impossible for US as humans", but impossible in and of themselves.

Miracles are instances of A behaving in an unordinary way - but not ultimately against its nature.

There are certain things (Miracles) that God can do and we will never learn to do because those things are within the nature of God to do, but they are not within our nature to do. By referring to "two different natures" here, I am not referring to different realities/dimensions. I simply mean that God has a nature and Man has a nature, and so does every other existent. And each existent can only act in accordance to its nature.

If God created water, then part of the nature of water is that it is dependent on God and part of the nature of God is that He is influential over water, and therefore He can cause water to act in such a way that a man could walk on top of it when and if He so chooses. Man did not create water and therefore Man cannot make water "walkable' by fiat (Man might find some technological way to do so in the future.. but it won't be by fiat like it is with God). Does that make sense?

Similarly, WE could never be infinite, omnipotent, etc... because it is not within the nature of Man to be those things. But that does not mean that it could not be in the nature of God to be those things. Just like its not in the nature of an amoeba to build a space ship and fly to the moon -- this doesnt mean that it is impossible for ANYTHING to build a space ship and fly to the moon.

That is a pretty big "if" you have hanging there.

The "if" clause was probably more confusing than helpful. What I was trying to get across is that If God exists and He is the "Immovable Mover", there are certain other things which must be true about Him-- attributes which He must have in order to be that type of God, attributes which very few religions actually ascribe to God. In other words, if God did not have xyz attributes, it WOULD be an instance of "A = ~A". But that is really a side point, so I apologize for bringing it up.

Nah, we should probably avoid things like the Virgin Pregnancy for this thread. Not that I wouldn’t mind discussing them, but they will likely get into areas outside of the God and Identity argument which is the point of the OP. I did (admittedly and rather flippantly) toss it out since I do find it an example of a gross contradiction. I have a feeling, however, that you have a different take on it and I hardly want to derail the thread on nuances in Scripture regarding certain parables. Needless to say I take them at face value and find massive contradictions as a result. I will add however that the story of Genesis and Original Sin is one that goes beyond a contradiction into one I find outrageous. As a Catholic I learned that I am a sinner for having the capacity to have the knowledge allowing me to have this debate with you, for example, which means it was evil to have grasped the Law of Identity to begin with. Talk about contradictions with baggage. Well that and the fact God wanted Eve to be an easy on the eyes garden gnome in his private garden. That just isn’t right.

Haha! You're funny. I like you.

Perhaps those conversations can be had over email or in another thread (though I can't imagine such a thread being appropriate on this forum..??)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you believe I have discovered the One True Religion?

Since so many theists have a problem understanding the concept of an arbitrary claim, I wrote the following blog post as a concrete example of why "lack of disproof" is not a valid excuse for believing. However it is also relevant to this thread, in that the view of God expressed (or revealed!) in it does not violate the law of identity, or any other metaphysical no-no. So perhaps it will help concretise that issue as well:

monorealism.com/blog/2012/the-one-true-god/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that??

If I may pre-empt your answer (for the sake of saving us both time), its because to you "God-creator" means "creator of all existence -- including HIM if He exists".

I don't know how many times I have to say that that is a straw man. Maybe this time it will stick though...

God created ALL OTHER EXISTENTS. He EXISTS (and is therefore "part" of existence) and created ALL OTHER existents -- all existents which are not Himself.

If that's unclear, please ask clarifying questions so I can try and make it more clear... if possible.

He absolutely must "obey" the laws of identity and causality!!... (which is just another way of saying "He must be Himself")

Why do you think that "eliminates omnipotence, omnipresence and other divine attributes"?

What is it about those attributes that creates/leads to a contradiction?

What is it about them that adds up to "A = ~A at the same time and in the same relationship"?

In fact you say that God is part of existence-he himself and all existents he created. But part cannot be bigger than whole and that what eliminates all divine attitudes. Besides, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity etc... are categories without identity. A creature with such a properties cannot have identity himself and nothing exists as nothing in particular. This is the meaning of "A=A"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a good idea... however I'm not sure which part you're wanting elaboration on. haha. So, I'm going to try and elaborate generally and if you'd like more specificity, please let me know. :)

My position (and the position of MUCH of philosophical Theism throughout the centuries -- especially pre-Kant) is that God cannot (and would not want to!) make "A = ~A"... He cannot commit contradictions. If He has performed any miracles, they are not contradictions because contradictions are inherently impossible - not just "impossible for US as humans", but impossible in and of themselves.

Miracles are instances of A behaving in an unordinary way - but not ultimately against its nature.

There are certain things (Miracles) that God can do and we will never learn to do because those things are within the nature of God to do, but they are not within our nature to do. By referring to "two different natures" here, I am not referring to different realities/dimensions. I simply mean that God has a nature and Man has a nature, and so does every other existent. And each existent can only act in accordance to its nature.

If God created water, then part of the nature of water is that it is dependent on God and part of the nature of God is that He is influential over water, and therefore He can cause water to act in such a way that a man could walk on top of it when and if He so chooses. Man did not create water and therefore Man cannot make water "walkable' by fiat (Man might find some technological way to do so in the future.. but it won't be by fiat like it is with God). Does that make sense?

Similarly, WE could never be infinite, omnipotent, etc... because it is not within the nature of Man to be those things. But that does not mean that it could not be in the nature of God to be those things. Just like its not in the nature of an amoeba to build a space ship and fly to the moon -- this doesnt mean that it is impossible for ANYTHING to build a space ship and fly to the moon.

The "if" clause was probably more confusing than helpful. What I was trying to get across is that If God exists and He is the "Immovable Mover", there are certain other things which must be true about Him-- attributes which He must have in order to be that type of God, attributes which very few religions actually ascribe to God. In other words, if God did not have xyz attributes, it WOULD be an instance of "A = ~A". But that is really a side point, so I apologize for bringing it up.

An interesting argument., you certainly have a knack for making me think outside the bun. That’s a good thing by the way :)

The “IF” is relevant however for a particular reason. You used it again in the first couple of paragraphs to explain that IF God exists [then the following things would reasonably explain God’s identity and relationship to the universe]. What you are saying *might* sound reasonable at first look if one assumes God exists, but the issue here is that I do not assume God exists. I do not assume any of the 3000+ variants exist nor have I ever been given reason to think that any one of them is different enough from another to render it plausible. I never get to the IF since there is no proof of God. Religions like Christianity make claims that contradict what we know in very fundamental ways, making it untenable even as a thought exercise.

Outside of that and back to the task at hand there is no evidence that God can do the things you claim. You cannot just arbitrarily claim that it is possible without any proof or even in direct contradiction of known facts by assigning God a deus ex machina. Without proof I can just as easily assert that it is Gods nature to sit grimly upon his mountain and ignore men outside of breathing the will to live in them and the strength to survive, and then set about teaching my nephews the riddle of steel. Despite sounding morally superior to the modern versions of this argument you’d still dismiss it even though it fits the claim. Proof? Nah… Crom can do it since it is in his nature.

Now if I assume for the sake of argument that God could do things that contradict known knowledge there is no reason to just accept them without any proof of their use or any demonstration of them being possible. Further, if I do agree that all of those powers are in God’s nature and we did know for certain that they are in God’s nature, I would still claim it is proof that He does not exist since nothing in nature to date has demonstrated those abilities nor do we have any proof that He has done these things. This is, after all the basic argument for a “jump of faith”.

Finally, if I were to accept some powers (another big IF) I still get stuck on issues such as God being infinite which is an axiomatic contradiction. God as infinite and unidentifiable being is the argument that an amorphous “blob” permeates the universe, yet still remains magically nowhere since we can’t see him, is an obvious logic gaff. A blob would be a step up since you can at least point to the blob and say “this”. There is accepting the plausible to think about it as an idea then there is something so unreasonable it defies logic.

Remember, in the “A is A” thread you have gone to great detail to explain the necessity of validation and their crucial role in confirming everything (including axioms). Very well I might add and it has been a great discussion. I’m following that advice here. There is no valid identification of this superior being, there is no valid confirmation to the powers ascribed to this unknown superior being, and finally there is nothing in nature to even grant the perceptive evidence to build a validation method around this unattributed, unknown, yet somehow superior being that is superior despite no way to validate it’s value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as a final addendum to all of this I'd like to paraphrase Dawkins. Everyone in this thread is already an atheist due to dismissing a God for violating the Law of Logic. People do this everyday since there have been over 3000+ documented Gods created by man historically. Most people dismiss most of them as irrational nonsense, making them atheists for those Gods. The only issue between self-described atheists and the monotheists is one God out of the thousands invented.

The only real difference is consistency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because philosophers reject most of the works of other philosophers of the past does not make them a-philosophers the same way theists aren't really atheists simply because they reject most Gods.

A theist is someone who believes in a specific group of Gods based on so called "holy" scriptures. Usually one God and usually based on the Bible, Koran or the Torah (monotheists).

Someone who believes in God but rejects the validity of any scripture would be called a Deist.

Some notable Deists were: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Robespierre .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because philosophers reject most of the works of other philosophers of the past does not make them a-philosophers the same way theists aren't really atheists simply because they reject most Gods.

Oooh, I can play this game. Just because a gorilla rejects most fruits does not make them anti-fruit. Just because a lumberjack rejects most oh I don't know let's go with fruit again, does not make them anti-banana.

Yes, if you take a perfectly sensible statement, and replace a couple of the words with unrelated ones, you can turn that statement into nonsense.

Why did you replace gods with philosophies, in Dawkins' statement? What do you think that proves? What kind of logical argument were you going for?

Are you saying the concepts philosophy and god have some kind of essential trait that makes them suited for an argument from analogy? What might that trait be?

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh, I can play this game. Just because a gorilla rejects most fruits does not make them anti-fruit. Just because a lumberjack rejects most oh I don't know let's go with fruit again, does not make them anti-banana.

Yes, if you take a perfectly sensible statement, and replace a couple of the words with unrelated ones, you can turn that statement into nonsense.

True, but in this case, calling people who reject *some* gods in favor of others "making them atheists for those [rejected] Gods" actually is nonsense. One is not an atheist to *some* gods. One is an atheist or one is not an atheist. Someone who accepts any idea of God is not an atheist in any sense, no matter how many other Gods they don't believe in.

What's really sad, however, is that the entire point being made by Spiral about the inconsistency (read contradiction) of those who DO believe is being lost because of a bad choice of words on his part.

Edited by Greebo
Link to post
Share on other sites

To end the side track on my post I hit Wiki and while the first paragraph agrees with me the second one sets up the definition as a denial of all Gods. I’m not sure where I got the conflicting definition but I stand corrected. I have no interest in losing the point by giving a side trek over a definition, so let me rephrase it. As a bonus it will give me a chance to be more positive.

There have been over 3000 Gods invented in the history of mankind. All of us posting either dismiss all or most of them as irrational nonsense based on applying the Laws of Logic. That means atheists and theists agree 99.97% on this issue. That’s really impressive when you think about it. Let’s focus on this tremendous area we do agree then consider the implications for the very small part (.03%) we disagree.

My observation is that I shouldn’t need to demonstrate to theists how any one of these God(s) violates the Laws of Logic since they have already done this with the 99.97% they have also rejected. We agree on this in thousands of cases. I’m just asking you to be consistent and apply the same critical methodology to add one more name to the vast list we already agree on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but in this case, calling people who reject *some* gods in favor of others "making them atheists for those [rejected] Gods" actually is nonsense.

It's nonsense because that part is meant as a joke. Jokes, taken literally, are nonsense.

And sure, there's an overall point, if you set that joke aside, which points out the inconsistency in applying flawless logic to thousands of gods, but missing one. The joke about the Pope being practically an atheist is meant to ridicule that inconsistency.

I responded to Daniel, because he was trying to prove that it's not inconsistent to use logic to reject some gods but not all, via a false analogy.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nonsense because that part is meant as a joke. Jokes, taken literally, are nonsense.

And sure, there's an overall point, if you set that joke aside, which points out the inconsistency in applying flawless logic to thousands of gods, but missing one. The joke about the Pope being practically an atheist is meant to ridicule that inconsistency.

I responded to Daniel, because he was trying to prove that it's not inconsistent to use logic to reject some gods but not all, via a false analogy.

Well at least someone else got the joke.

And I am adding the Pope part to future renditions. That is GOLD!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is illogical

Nothing is more illogical than believing something for which there is absolutely no evidence. A god could very well exist, but so could the proverbial Flying Spaghetti Monster. Making the choice to believe in something simply because it is possible is not consistent with the actions of a rational man. You cannot prove a god's existence. You cannot disprove a god's existence. But you are never called upon to prove a negative. And since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. I don't understand what the point of making a thread for arguments against theism is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

An interesting argument., you certainly have a knack for making me think outside the bun. That’s a good thing by the way :)

The “IF” is relevant however for a particular reason. You used it again in the first couple of paragraphs to explain that IF God exists [then the following things would reasonably explain God’s identity and relationship to the universe]. What you are saying *might* sound reasonable at first look if one assumes God exists, but the issue here is that I do not assume God exists. I do not assume any of the 3000+ variants exist nor have I ever been given reason to think that any one of them is different enough from another to render it plausible. I never get to the IF since there is no proof of God. Religions like Christianity make claims that contradict what we know in very fundamental ways, making it untenable even as a thought exercise.

Outside of that and back to the task at hand there is no evidence that God can do the things you claim. You cannot just arbitrarily claim that it is possible without any proof or even in direct contradiction of known facts by assigning God a deus ex machina. Without proof I can just as easily assert that it is Gods nature to sit grimly upon his mountain and ignore men outside of breathing the will to live in them and the strength to survive, and then set about teaching my nephews the riddle of steel. Despite sounding morally superior to the modern versions of this argument you’d still dismiss it even though it fits the claim. Proof? Nah… Crom can do it since it is in his nature.

Now if I assume for the sake of argument that God could do things that contradict known knowledge there is no reason to just accept them without any proof of their use or any demonstration of them being possible. Further, if I do agree that all of those powers are in God’s nature and we did know for certain that they are in God’s nature, I would still claim it is proof that He does not exist since nothing in nature to date has demonstrated those abilities nor do we have any proof that He has done these things. This is, after all the basic argument for a “jump of faith”.

Finally, if I were to accept some powers (another big IF) I still get stuck on issues such as God being infinite which is an axiomatic contradiction. God as infinite and unidentifiable being is the argument that an amorphous “blob” permeates the universe, yet still remains magically nowhere since we can’t see him, is an obvious logic gaff. A blob would be a step up since you can at least point to the blob and say “this”. There is accepting the plausible to think about it as an idea then there is something so unreasonable it defies logic.

Remember, in the “A is A” thread you have gone to great detail to explain the necessity of validation and their crucial role in confirming everything (including axioms). Very well I might add and it has been a great discussion. I’m following that advice here. There is no valid identification of this superior being, there is no valid confirmation to the powers ascribed to this unknown superior being, and finally there is nothing in nature to even grant the perceptive evidence to build a validation method around this unattributed, unknown, yet somehow superior being that is superior despite no way to validate it’s value.

The "theme" of this particular thread is logical arguments against the existence of God. As a Theist, therefore, I am simply focusing on the refutation of any possible logical arguments against the existence of God in this thread. I do have positive arguments for the existence of God (mostly expounded in the "Argument for the Existence of God" thread), but I have intentionally tried to keep positive arguments to a minimum in this thread in order to stay on topic. I am also very happy to discuss positive argument for God over email, etc.. with any individual who would like more clarifying discussion than what can be had on the forum.

Now aside from simply staying on topic, I will add that there is a certain value in addressing the logical (philosophical) arguments against God's existence before moving to positive arguments or "proof". In "proving" my position, my personal expertise and preference lies in logical arguments rather than "evidential" ones. From the way you have discussed "proof" or the lack-thereof above, I assume that you are referring more to the lack of scientific/empirical evidence. Quickly, I would like to ask if you would accept an argument from logical necessity (as proof FOR His existence) - apart from empirical evidence - and if not, why not? Regarding empirical evidence, however, it is always good (and necessary) to clear the philosophical ground before moving on to more specified studies/ inquiries. This debate is a perfect example of that.

The typical Atheist has a philosophy that says "miracles are logically impossible and therefore have never happened - which means all apparent "evidence" of miracles is to be dismissed as hoax, illusion, etc..." But when asked "On what do you base the assumption that miracles are impossible?", the Atheist answers "on the basis that none have ever happened". So, it is a circular argument: "Miracles can't happen because the submitted evidence for them must be discounted because they can't happen". This was addressed (much more eloquently) by C.S. Lewis in the book "Miracles".

Before you can objectively analyze any potential evidence for miracles, you must first establish whether or not they are logically possible. If they are logically impossible, then no evidence need be consulted. If they are logically possible, then the potential evidence needs to be treated with the same objectivity as potential evidence for any other claim.

So, the purpose in addressing and refuting the logical arguments against God (and miracles) is to clear a path to the consideration of positive arguments FOR them. The emphasis of my studies, though, does not deal much (right now) with the empirical arguments - though, with the right philosophical framework, there are good resources out there concerning the historicity and reliability of historical Biblical accounts.

I think all of that should sufficiently deal with the majority of your post which seems to address the lack of positive evidence.

You did mention a potential logical argument against God concerning the issue of Him being infinite, and I hate to leave you hanging, but I gotta go. I will do my best to respond to that particular issue soon. Thanks for the discussion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When considering the concepts of possible and impossible, why it is necessary to preface them with logically? To identify what is possible, one only need look out to reality and see possibility after possibility. Possibility is that which has, can or will happen. Impossible is the obverse of that, or that which has not, can not, or will not happen. Logic is a derivative from that which has, can or will happen. Only after the rules of logic are induced, and then the logical connection back to the data which gave rise to them is disregarded can the declaration that apples are razors, that oranges are blades and that shaving with fruit salad comes across as a sweet application of a dull conclusion..

Logic is the means by which one can validate what impossible delineates. It relies on an understanding of what is possible in order to provide the groundwork for its antitheses, the impossible. Only by severing impossible from its logical relationship to possible can we arrive at the postulation that the impossible can somehow be logically demonstrated apart from its reliance on the possible. Proof, logical demonstration, and evidence are derived from that which exists. If something has not, can not, nor will not exist, no proof, logical demonstration or evidence is forthcoming by the nature of the relationships necessitated by all the various aspects involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever said anything about thinking "on His level"? You don't need to think on some mystical "higher level" in order to see that what He does is logical - you simply need to better understand what logic IS and what it ISN'T... and then understand what God has done and what He hasn't.

In other words, be able to distinguish between contradictions and anomalies, and be able to distinguish between legitimate philosophical theism and strawmen.

It actually follows very certainly, but that's a topic for a different thread (perhaps "Argument for the Existence of God" and I am currently writing on that subject (and a lot more) and will be happy to send you a copy the finished product when it's complete.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. You seem to be describing a lot of stuff about consciousness --- but are you arguing that those things are essential to consciousness such that a being without a physical body could not have consciousness??

You seem to be saying that if God is logical and does not act against His nature (i.e. creates what He does because of who He is rather than arbitrarily), then He can't possibly have a personality. Does that mean that the essence of personality is acting against your nature? Would you accuse Galt of having little to no personality because he was so logical and always acting according to his nature???

1) If you think God is knowable, then by what means do we know God?

(EDIT: Don't answer this, you are already discussing this with like 15 other people don't worry about it)

2) Yes the fact that biologically conciousness has a "function" seems to indicate that it is particular to life. I am arguing in essence that the conciousness that we observe empirically (essentially decision making) , has a cause in evolution.

3) No, I don't think I implied that. I implied that there was no choice, no alternatives. Concious beings like ourselves make choices, we are uncertain. We choose between what we see as alternatives. Without alternatives there are not choices. If there is no other possible existence than this one, then God made no choice.Everything is the result of this beings nature, and there are no alternatives. Which means all the psychological properties of this being can be reduced to physics.

Edited by Hairnet
Link to post
Share on other sites

When considering the concepts of possible and impossible, why it is necessary to preface them with logically? To identify what is possible, one only need look out to reality and see possibility after possibility. Possibility is that which has, can or will happen. Impossible is the obverse of that, or that which has not, can not, or will not happen.

Except the means which you propose above ("one only need look out to reality and see possibility after possibility") would *only* supply you with information concerning that which has/is happening. It can tell you nothing about what could/will happen.

As an example: 2,000 years ago, based on what was seen, men considered it "impossible" that Man could fly to the moon. They were right, in a sense; they were right that at that time and in that context, it was impossible. However, that type of possibility/impossibility must be distinguished from the logical possibility/impossibility because apart from tat distinction, it could/should be said that we have "done the logically impossible and defied logic"... as some idiots are happy to proclaim.

You could say that it was contextually impossible, but not logically impossible. A contextual impossiblity is something that is "impossible" but not contradictory. A logical impossibility is a contradiction.

Personally, to avoid confusion, I actually prefer to reserve the terms "possible" and "impossible" to refer to "non-contradictory" and "contradictory".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting distinction.

I'm not positing this as an argument against gods, rather just an extension of your observation here in my thoughts.

Observing existence supplies us with information concerning that which has/is happening, it can tell you nothing about what could/will happen (except to those who discover it, somehow *think induction*). To arbitrarily assert a god |consciousness| exists |preceding existence|, is a has/is happening, not a could/will happen. That which has/is is available from observation. Could/will (in most cases, the man-made in Objectivist terminology, barring new discoveries-which are technically still man-made though they rely on has/is in order to be discovered) doesn't necessarily have to be, but once it is (man flew to the moon) it moves it from could/will to the has/is. That which has/is on a first-level basis can be demonstrated ostensibly. That which has/is beyond the first level in conceptual terms requires a methodology to induce it from first-level observations. The fundamental concept of method in this regard is logic - so even logic needs to be derived by induction from the observational level. While that which could/will happen may not logically be traced back to the observational level, that which has/is ought be - if validity in ones thought is the desired result. Technically, that which could/will happen still relies on the has/is in order for it to be discovered or induced.

As to context, the knowledge needed to put a man on the moon had not been discovered 2000 years ago. The context needed to objectively distinguish between valid and invalid concepts did not either.

Link to post
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...