Plasmatic Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 The above talk of creating a new universe is pure nonsense and exactly the same error you are making with starting with the concept "creator" and then dropping context by switching to the concept "heroic". No matter what any human "creates" it will only utilize preexisting materials and what ever rearrangement of the given that results will ever and only constitute part of the one universe, that is, it will be part of existence. You are talking nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted October 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) All I can ask myself at this point DA, is "Why bother?". Apparently you don't see the problems endemic in "create a new universe from scratch", or why it is "an unlikely conclusion"? In a somewhat perverse way, this exchange from the movie The Rite seems fitting to conclude this exchange with: [Father Lucas shows Michael a possessed girl he is trying to perform an exorcism on] Father Lucas Trevant: What is it that you believe? Michael Kovak: That's not the devil. Father Lucas Trevant: Does a thief or a burglar turn on the lights while he's robbing your house? No. He prefers you to believe that he's not there... like the devil! Michael Kovak: Gets complicated when no proof of the devil is somehow proof of the devil. Edited October 17, 2015 by dream_weaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Having demonstrated that Man acting with natural god like abilities presents no conflict with the POE, and presenting evidence of credible science and reporting to support the possibility of creating a universe, you are now simply poo-pooing what displeases you with statements like, "pure nonsense" and "why bother". Since neither of you have presented any evidence that directly contradicts my claim as a possibility, we can leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted October 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 The principle you have not come to terms with is that an arbitrary statement is neither "true" nor "false". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) I have not made an arbitrary statement, I have presented a possibility with the required minimal evidence and lack of contradiction to support that it is, in fact possible and in agreement with the definition of the term according to Objectivism: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/possible.html Further investigation of the supposed creation of a rainbow universe by scientists at CERN may move this from a possibility to the kind of concrete truth you are looking for, and time will tell. But that would be rather like demanding to see the plane prior to acknowledging that flight is possible. While I appreciate your objection to the claim that "God created the Universe" based on the POE, it remains possible that Man may become a Natural God that can create a universe too. Wouldn't that effectively remove the reason for religion? Edited October 17, 2015 by Devil's Advocate cleanup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted October 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Insisting that what you are providing as evidence for what you are claiming does not make it so. Never mind that your proposition is also dealing with an invalid concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Since neither of you have presented any evidence that directly contradicts my claim as a possibility, we can leave it at that. Good idea. The phrase "a victory of hope over experience" has been hanging over the last few posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 OK, so the CERN thing about creating a rainbow universe was apparently a hoax *sigh* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 Insisting that what you are providing as evidence for what you are claiming does not make it so. I don't mean to take up for (the other) DA or his position, but I'd like to probe this a bit -- if you don't mind? It's true that claiming something to be evidence for X doesn't make it so; it's also true that claiming that something is *not* evidence for X doesn't make that so, either. So what are the criteria or procedure(s) for determining what reasonably constitutes evidence for a given claim? It might be most practical (and useful to the thread) to see this demonstrated with respect to the ongoing claims. It might also serve to contrast this against the "arbitrary," since that seems to be what lead us down this particular path. From the Lexicon, here is Peikoff on the arbitrary: “Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality. In your opinion, does this accurately describe (the other) DA's approach here? A "sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality"? Devil's Advocate 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted October 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) I am trying to see where I got muddled in this. I jumped the gun on the arbitrary when DA asked for evidence which contradicted assertion. There can be no evidence, for or against, for that which, in fact, does not exist. True, propositions were being put forth, but only as explanation which stated man creates, which of itself is true, where supposedly the Natural God/Heroic Being, is just on a grander scale. Man terra-forming Mars, would indeed be man re shaping existence on a grander scale, but it would still simply be man re-shaping existence. Appearing to be "god-like" to primitive man, does not make for a Natural God (which would still, as a concept, need to be validated.) In some cases, the criteria for evidence is simple. What would be evidence of a ball rolling, or a fish swimming? Not much required there. To take something more abstract, the notion of light traveling, is in part validated by the grasp of something blocking its way, shedding insight on how a shadow is formed, for instance. Ultimately, evidence needs to be reduced back to sensory data. What would be evidence for a "Natural God"? If you know God is an invalid concept, then by extension, you would know there can be no evidence, again, for. or against. If a "Natural God" is just man performing a feat never before accomplished, wherein lies the necessity of the concept? History is replete with examples of. So in answer to your question, is DA's approach "arbitrary". Certainly not directly. Edited October 20, 2015 by dream_weaver Punctuation. Devil's Advocate 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) So what are the criteria or procedure(s) for determining what reasonably constitutes evidence for a given claim? DA's claim (at least in the recent set of posts) is worse than arbitrary. His recent posts start by supporting faith. If he'd said that there must be a God in order to explain creation, perhaps we could argue that his claim was arbitrary. Maybe he's done that in March or earlier, but the thrust this time was: faith. Who can argue with that? As for whether a non-faith-based argument for God is arbitrary, I guess it depends on the specifics of the claim. If God means "some powerful forces and processes that can do things that humans cannot" , then the claim for God is not arbitrary. In fact, in this sense, God does exist (but, it's really nature and.the real problem would be concept-formation and clarity of terms). When people speak about "man becoming God", they equivocate, and need to correct the fallacy by using the right concepts and terms. Typically, God means "some powerful consciousness...". Within this meaning: what is the specific nature of the claim? One level of evidence may be sufficient for a speculative hypothesis: "such a God might exist, even though it does not seem likely" (the view of the modern agnostic). Far more evidence is required to say, as a deist, "such a God probably exists, but only as an initial prime-mover, not as an ongoing controller". And, then one can get progressively stronger claims leading to specific religions: "Christ was God or a manifestation of God". They get more arbitrary as they get stronger. Take the weakest of these claims -- the agnostic one: "such a God might exist, even though it does not seem likely". At first glance, whether one considers this arbitrary depends on the context of knowledge against which one weighs the claim. For instance, today we have explanations for all sorts of phenomena. Every exploration, in every sphere of science -- around us, inside us, inside other animals, and outside Earth has continuously shown natural explanations. To postulate some super-natural consciousness against all these is completely arbitrary. By that standard, one can make almost any claim about anything. Also at first glance, it would seem that primitive man -- who had no explanation for most natural -- was not being so arbitrary to hypothesize: "I don't know for sure, but maybe there's some powerful consciousness out there... doing all this stuff". A philosopher among them who had understood out the problem of infinite regress would still dismiss the claim, but I still think it is less arbitrary for a primitive or uneducated person to hold the hypothesis in a very speculative way. Edited October 21, 2015 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 @ softwareNerd, How is having faith that Man can can become godlike in a natural context, obeying nature and commanding it, "worse than arbitrary"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 @ softwareNerd, How is having faith that Man can can become godlike in a natural context, obeying nature and commanding it, "worse than arbitrary"? I could easily agree with the statement "I have faith that Man can become godlike in a natural...etc" This would be by using a specific meaning for "faith" and for "godlike", and these meanings are not the same as anyone carrying out a serious non-poetic discussion about "faith" and "god". So, this is not an example of the arbitrary, but of the fallacy of equivocation (on both those terms). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) The equivocation comes from presenting Nature's God as a supernatural Creator. A similar criticism can be made of presenting Man as a heroic being, heroes being of divine origin. The fundamental contradiction, mixing the real with the unreal, is a part of both descriptions. And while we can quibble over whether or not removing the contradictory part equivocates the whole, accepting the primary of existence changes the context of natural gods and heroic beings in terms of what is or isn't a serious discussion. Heroic, or even omnipotent actions are then delimited to the possible within the scope of existence. Edited October 21, 2015 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) DA said: A similar criticism can be made of presenting Man as a heroic being, heroes being of divine origin. The fundamental contradiction, mixing the real with the unreal, is a part of both descriptions. The only person making the concept heroic of "divine" origin is you. This is why I started by saying you had to define "the what" before we can start validation the how. One cannot give evidence for invalid concepts like divine, god, creator, or your conception of the "heroic". When someone tries to salvage invalid, or anti-concepts, they have to equivocate/drop context. Concepts are "green lights to induction" and an Objective approach will lead one to settle the premises of a discussion by addressing any red light concepts first. Don Anthos' question about evidence is really answered by the analysis of concept formation between the parties accepting or rejecting evidence. This will bring the parties in to agreement on "the what". Until that is done no clear progress can be made. Edited October 21, 2015 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) SN said: To postulate some super-natural consciousness against all these is completely arbitrary. By that standard, one can make almost any claim about anything. The concept "supernature" is an invalid concept and cannot even get to the arbitrary conversation with one who challenges the concept. A request for definition comes before a request for justification. Edited October 21, 2015 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 DA said: The only person making the concept heroic of "divine" origin is you. This is why I started by saying you had to define "the what" before we can start validation the how. ... The concept "heroic" is derived from Greek mythology, e.g., Heracles, whose divine parents were Zeus and Hera. Are you seriously going to dispute this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 DA said: Faith in terms of God, is a conclusion drawn from a lack of knowledge. Advocating for the absence of Faith is equally meaningless given that it relies on proof of a negative, i.e., that nothing like God exists. In that respect, arguments for or against Faith necessarily rely on the creation of a straw deity. SN is right that DA's concept of faith is part of the problem here. The above is a convoluted mess and it is this type of misintegration that leads to folks hanging on to concepts of religion while also accepting rational premises. DA said: That something is implies that the knowledge and ability to create it is also there to be discovered. Faith is advocacy that you don't get something (like a universe) from nothing. Until you can prove otherwise the issue will remain unresolved, but if you can, you will be an excellent candidate for God and have defeated your own argument. This amounts to making the rejection of contradiction and the arbitrary an act of faith. DA is essentially saying that rejecting the arbitrary is an act of faith in "evidence of absence" and that rejecting a contradictory claim or invalid concept is tantamount to faith in a negative. That is incoherent. This also begs the question of "design". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted October 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Heroic was also the term applied to their warriors (military personnel) Edited October 21, 2015 by dream_weaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 DA said: The concept "heroic" is derived from Greek mythology, e.g., Heracles, whose divine parents were Zeus and Hera. Are you seriously going to dispute this? I'm disputing that Rand-Oist literature means the above when using the concept hero. I am rejecting that definition as a valid reference to anything non-mythological. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 No, the equivocation comes from presenting "Nature's God" as a consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 "Heroic was also a term applied to their warriors (military personnel)" ~ dream_weaver "I'm disputing that Rand-Oist literature means the above when using the concept hero. I am rejecting that definition as a valid reference to anything non-mythological." ~ Plasmatic What I'm looking for is consistency in editing when accepting or rejecting philosophical terms from historical sources. You assert that "heroes" are consistent with Objectivism despite their historical origin because you've allowed yourself the ability to revise them within the POE. But then you cry foul when I present "natural god(s)" with the same revision.How is this not the heroic pot calling the divine kettle black? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 No, the equivocation comes from presenting "Nature's God" as a consciousness. When speaking of nature, we are speaking of existence. Consciousness within nature presupposes the existence of whatever real elements are necessary to support the phenomenon of consciousness. The possibility of a conscious natural being is well documented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) DA said: What I'm looking for is consistency in editing when accepting or rejecting philosophical terms from historical sources First, you have to understand what concept formation is, how it is done. DA said: . You assert that "heroes" are consistent with Objectivism despite their historical origin because you've allowed yourself the ability to revise them within the POE. But then you cry foul when I present "natural god(s)" with the same revision.How is this not the heroic pot calling the divine kettle black? One definition is a contradiction and the other isn't. Your rebranding of "creator" is invalid because your irreducible existent "god-creator" is still an instance of "creation" from nothing. Without materials your "creator" has nothing to create with. Edited October 21, 2015 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Da said: The possibility of a conscious natural being is well documented. The existence of conscious natural beings is a certainty, not a possibility. The possibility of a ontologically singular, conscious, natural being "creating" all the existential multiplicity that is, is another thing entirely. This is an example of what I meant by dropping context while trying to rescue the concepts "creator" and "god" from naturalism. Edited October 21, 2015 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.