Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the existence of "God" possible?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Okay, you said a lot of stuff, but you didn't answer my question. Perhaps it's my fault, and I need to be more specific. Do you believe in "souls"? Do you believe that their are entities of consciousness out there that are not part of living human beings? Do you believe in ghosts (consciousness that apparently survives the body's death)? Do you believe that rocks have consciousness and are aware of other existents?

Let me start with the easiest question: No, I don't believe that rocks have consciousness and are aware of other existents :) . Calm down.

But I do believe - that is to say I can't imagine it to be different, so if you can please explain how - that consciousness survives the body's death. This isn't "apparent" in the sense that I've been in contact with any such consciousness, since I don't believe that's possible. See, I don't believe that consciousness without a body has any influence on any living being or anything else in the universe, nor that it can communicate with any other conciousness, nor that it knows anything about the universe. All that such a conciousness can know is that it exists. This is the basic thing that every conciousness knows of itself at all times, whether in a body or not. This is why it doesn't require any proof of its own existence. A consciousness IS and knows that it IS, otherwise it wouldn't be conscious.

However, I DON'T know - and I think you agree that I can't - whether these entities are "out there" (although the attribute of location wouldn't even apply to them) or whether they are reconnected to another body after the death of the old one.

The reason why I think I have to believe all this simply the obvious. I mean, c'mon: Do you consider yourself just a cohesive arrangement of atoms that works in a certain way? What makes you and me different from a rock other than the degree of complexity? If your answer is "I'm concious", which would be mine, then please explain what you think that means. What do you think makes it reasonable to talk of "someone" versus "something"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No, I don't believe that rocks have consciousness and are aware of other existents

Okay, that's good.

Calm down.
This is unnecessary. I'm neither upset, nor excited, and my words don't convey that emotion. Stick to the topic.

But I do believe - that is to say I can't imagine it to be different, so if you can please explain how - that consciousness survives the body's death.

Okay, you imagine it to be this way. The burden is not on me to prove a negative (i.e. no consciousness remains after death), it's on you to prove the positive assertion, consciousness remains after death and is indestructible.. For you to make such assertion requires more than your imagination for proof.

Please support your arbitrary assertions, or refrain from making them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, you imagine it to be this way. The burden is not on me to prove a negative (i.e. no consciousness remains after death), it's on you to prove the positive assertion, consciousness remains after death and is indestructible.. For you to make such assertion requires more than your imagination for proof.

Please support your arbitrary assertions, or refrain from making them.

I don't know what you expect me to do. Look, if you assume that I'm right, then how would you expect someone to proove the existence of something that isn't made of any material? There is no evidence like measuring some weight etc.

I can only know it myself, and I can only do so by identifying myself, by looking at what I am. I think you agree that this is true if you assume that I'm right about what I said about consciousness.

I don't see how you can make something that IS deny its own existence.

And this is the same proof I can offer to you, though it's not a proof I can make to you directly, it's a proof you can only make to yourself, because I have no means of perceiving your consciousness. Only you do, and if I'm right then you ARE a consciousness, just like me, and that implies that you know what you are since a consciousness is conscious of its own existence.

The only "proof" to me about what YOU are is what you can tell me about yourself, about what you know you are, about what you identify yourself as. And knowing what I am, I would then also know that such a thing can exist (if your description of yourself equaled my description of myself), so I would then assume, given the fact that all your biological properties are of the same kind as mine, that you're right about yourself.

And this "proof" goes vice versa.

As for my claim about the indestructibility, it is directly and logically derived from the nature of consciousness as described by me: Non-materialism implies indestructability. So once you have accepted my version of the nature of consciousness, its immortality logically follows.

Hope that helps understand what I mean.

Edited by Vanderlanden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you expect me to do.

I expect you not to engage in arbitrary assertions. Beliefs in "immortal" consciousness or "non-body" consciousness are arbitrary beliefs.

First, the "composition" of consciousness is not self-evident like consciousness itself. As such, I'm not going engage in an argument asserting either way. I do not see enough evidence to derive the composition of consciousness. A conclusion here would require an unsupported assumption, something I'm not going to do, and something that you are doing. Nor do I take it as a given that it MUST be non-material to escape determinism. (but there's already a thread on that if you wish to go partake).

Second, if one does assume that consciousness is non-material, indestructibility is not the only logical conclusion. It may be one possible conclusion (for which there is no evidence at this time), but not necessarily the only one. Therefore, any such belief that it is indestructible is just that, a belief, not a fact, and it is certainly not self-evident. One cannot determine the nature of it's immateriality in the absence of a host human body.

Third, if one assumes that consciousness is non-material, then it is a contradiction to say that it could not interact with the physical once it's original (??) host body has died. If a non-material consciousness can interact with that physical body, that establishes that it can interact with physical bodies. There is no logical reason to presume that it could not continue to interact with other physical bodies. What mystical spirit "laws" change when the first body dies, that prevents it from interacting with other physical bodies? (That is a rhetorical question, do not answer it as it would only lead to more of the arbitrary) This leads to beliefs in reincarnation, possessions, or what have you. While there are plenty of forums out there that will entertain such notions, this isn't one of them.

Moderator Note:

At this point, any further such claims in this vein should be taken to the debate forum, should you find someone who wishes to entertain your position on immortal, indestructible consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommended a band to a friend of mine who has, in my opinion, relatively no philosophy. He responded by saying, "I like it." I then asked him "Why?" He had no explanation, just that he "liked it" and that it reminded him of another song.

Below is my response:

"There's a reason for everything. If there isn't a reason for something - there's a reason for that."

I would say that you like how it sounds BECAUSE of a deeper reason. All you need to do is ask why:

- I like how it sounds.

- Why?

- Because the melody is enjoyable.

- Why?

- Because it's in the major scale and the tonal relationships in the major scale are enjoyable.

- Why?

- Tonal relationships are relationships between different auditory frequencies. For instance, in the visible light spectrum, certain frequencies (colors) have certain mathematical relationships with other frequencies (colors). Complementary colors for instance: Blue and yellow, magenta and green ( http://www.webwhirlers.com/colors/combining.asp ), etc. It's the same way with auditory frequencies. It all comes down to mathematical relationships ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music) )

- Why?

- Well, sound is the compression and decompression of air molecules. An auditory frequency occurs when an object pushes air back and forward at a certain rate. That is the frequency (like when you hit one end of a stretched slinky and it sends a wave to the other end (speakers work like this)) and at that point, that's all that it is (not even SOUND yet): compressions moving through the air. The compressions travel through the air and into our ears, vibrating bones in our ears which, in turn, tap against our ear drums. This is where those compressions are perceived by the brain and become SOUND. The frequency of the drumming changes according to the rate that the air is compressed and decompressed by the object making the sound. Frequencies that have mathematical relationships are perceived by our brain as more enjoyable. For instance, the musical note "A" (which orchestras tune to before they perform) has a frequency of 440 Hz (meaning 440 compressions (in the air) per second). The octave of "A" (the next highest "A" on the scale (or 12 piano keys away)) has a frequency of 880hz (880 compressions (in the air) per second). Here are all the other notes that fall between the A and A octave: http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/eecs20/week8/scale.html . And everyone has they're own variations regarding their brain's perception of tonal relationships. Some individuals prefer other scales besides the major scale (Dorian, Myxolidian, Minor, etc). But most people enjoy the major scale over the others. It's less mathematically dissonant. And my brain seems to enjoy the frequencies of the major scale.

- Why?

- Well that's as far as we know, really. There's a bit more but it gets a little confusing, and ultimately you'd ask why again and again, and I'd say, "Because those are the mathematical laws that define the Universe - like gravity." And you would keep asking why, and I would say, "That IS as DEEP as we can confidently go with science - at least as of right now. The only two alternatives that I can think of is that the universe is constant and you have to accept that mathematical laws exist, or, conversely, that the universe is not constant and such laws were created by some kind of intelligent design, which most people call "God" - but then ruin it by claiming that "God" is an ever-present force instead of simply the name we call the thing that first put all laws in motion. To me, reason (based on the way things seem to work in the Universe) indicates that the latter is true. St. Thomas Aquinas said it best: "Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God." I would also contend that, if this is the case, the only way that we can be closer to "knowing" "God" is through the scientific exploration of the Universe, thereby discovering the only truly "divine" laws.

And you might say, "Why do you care? "

And I would say, "Read this: http://gos.sbc.edu/r/rand.html . In order to decide what I should do (ethics), I need to know 1. the nature of the world I live in (metaphysics), and 2. how I know the nature of the world I live in (epistemology) (to JUSTIFY that I do know the nature of the world I live in). Only then, can I decide what I should do, or (in other words) what decisions would be right or wrong for me to make.

Edited by NewYorkRoark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this relates to "God" talk, please use the existing God Thread.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...wtopic=3330&hl=

Thank you.

[Threads subsequently merged.]

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so what exactly is your point/question?

This is my rational definition of God and it's connection with science... I figured it would be critiqued without my asking.

If this relates to "God" talk, please use the existing God Thread.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...wtopic=3330&hl=

Thank you.

I would have prefered to concentrate on "God" as it is related to science. It's certainly related to the other topic, but I felt that a more focused discussion might be in order? If you object, I will post elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have prefered to concentrate on "God" as it is related to science. It's certainly related to the other topic, but I felt that a more focused discussion might be in order? If you object, I will post elsewhere.

I would prefer you use the other thread. Actually, that was supposed to have been the focus of the other thread, to examine if a god's existence was (scientifically) possible. Your examination might possibly be more on topic than many other posts have been in that thread.

Thanks.

[Threads subsequently merged.]

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand you to be saying:

  1. Everything is caused
  2. But, the causal chain must be finite
  3. Therefore there must be a final cause

Is that true? In other words, can your argument be summarized as saying: Some final cause must exist.

And, you want to use the term "God" to refer to this final cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There doesnt have to be a 'reason for everything'. There does have to be a cause of everything, but a reason isnt a cause. The cause of him liking that particular melody might be best explained by scientific psychology, perhaps by reference to events in his childhood and some form of conditioning, such as his connecting a similar melody to a happy event in his life. But this is not the 'reason' why he liked the song. Reasons are teleological explanations, not scientific hypotheses.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand you to be saying:

  1. Everything is caused


  2. But, the causal chain must be finite


  3. Therefore there must be a final cause

Is that true? In other words, can your argument be summarized as saying: Some final cause must exist.

And, you want to use the term "God" to refer to this final cause?

Not exactly.

I'm saying that we can not know, at this point, whether there was a first mover or whether movement has always existed. However, according to what seems to be the scientific norm in our universe, it seems that something needs to exert energy upon something else in order to move it. So I AM saying that most likely, there was a first mover ("God") rather than infinite movement. I am also saying that, if this is the case, the first mover established certain [mathematical] laws that define the nature of the Universe. For instance, we are not able to destroy gravity. We can, however, know enough about other laws so that we're able to combat gravity - but it will always be in action - as far as we know.

I would go further and say that we are still rather limited in our scope of knowledge. For instance, black holes and quantum mechanics may revolutionize how we think of space and time.

It's important to note that I do NOT believe, or rather, I am not confident in making the assertion that everything is caused. At this point, I am not convinced that volition is self-evident, nor am I convinced of an alternative.

So, to explicitly answer your question, your summary was not exact because I never claimed that anything must be the case, nor did I claim that everything was caused. I did claim, however, that it seems more likely that there was a first mover and also, that, although not everything is caused (as far as we know), everything is governed by the laws that define the Universe.

Edited by NewYorkRoark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... your summary was not exact because I never claimed that anything must be the case,...
You're saying that you were stating a hypothesis rather than an assertion of fact. Fair enough.

I'm still not clear about the hypothesis. Is it: some fundamental force, more fundamental than the ones we know, more fundamental in the sense that it causes the others, is likely to exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're saying that you were stating a hypothesis rather than an assertion of fact. Fair enough.

I'm still not clear about the hypothesis. Is it: some fundamental force, more fundamental than the ones we know, more fundamental in the sense that it causes the others, is likely to exist?

It is some fundamental force, perhaps THE fundamental force. But I would not venture to say that it is the cause of everything. Instead, I would say that it is the ultimate cause of everything. In other words, it doesn't cause a ball to fall from the roof of a house, but it is the force that allowed that event (the interaction between mass and gravity) to occur. I apologize because it is somewhat hard to articulate.

If you're put in prison because you steal from a store, you wouldn't say that the cause of your prison stay was the fact that there was a law against stealing - I don't think. You'd say that the law against stealing allowed such an event to occur.

Reasons are teleological explanations, not scientific hypotheses.

I disagree... It seems to me that a scientific exploration is ultimately equivalent to a teleological exploration.

Edited by NewYorkRoark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On what basis do you believe that a prime mover is more likely than infinite movement? Presumably, the prime mover would have to move, and be caused to move itself. So isn't it more likely that there was always some sort of movement?

To me, it seems more reasonable (knowing how things work in the world - scientifically) to imagine a first mover than infinite movement. The idea of the prime mover is that it is an end in itself. The prime movement would be the prime cause. It's entirely debatable, but at this point, I lean towards a prime mover.

And even if there was infinite movement, you could still think of mathematical laws as "God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any basis for your hypotheses.

Howeever, suppose some day some scientist finds that an ultimate force (let's say we call it the FCH-Force) does exist. Let's say some scientist explains how the FCH-Force causes gravity, light, you name it. What of it?

Is it part of your hypothesis that the existence of the FCH-Force will make a difference to epistemology or to ethics? Would it have any more difference than say the discovery of other forces and fundamental particles have had over time?

You say one can think of mathematical laws as "God". Well, you can think of them as anything; you can think of them as hamburgers surely. That does not change the fact that they are mathematical laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newyorkroark,

I see two problems with your assertions:

1) Why would the "first mover" be exempt from the requirements of causation that made you look for a “first mover” in the first place? What evidence do you have that a “first mover” exists? How does your “seems more reasonable to imagine” mean anything at at, scientifically?

With all of the above, I don’t see anything that puts your assertion outside of the category of “arbitrary.” Are you familiar with Dr. Peikoff's writings on True vs. False vs. Arbitrary?

2) I don’t understand your comment, “And even if there was infinite movement, you could still think of mathematical laws as "God."” Why would you want to call “mathematical laws” by the name “God?” The word “God” is used to mean a very specific thing: a supernatural creator that defies identity, causality, etc.

Why would you seek to name something very rational, mathematical laws, after something very irrational: “God?” This both trivializes the truth of mathematical laws and gives sanction to the irrational anti-concept of “God.” I highly recommend that you reconsider this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newyorkroark,

I see two problems with your assertions:

1) Why would the "first mover" be exempt from the requirements of causation that made you look for a “first mover” in the first place? What evidence do you have that a “first mover” exists? How does your “seems more reasonable to imagine” mean anything at at, scientifically?

With all of the above, I don’t see anything that puts your assertion outside of the category of “arbitrary.” Are you familiar with Dr. Peikoff's writings on True vs. False vs. Arbitrary?

2) I don’t understand your comment, “And even if there was infinite movement, you could still think of mathematical laws as "God."” Why would you want to call “mathematical laws” by the name “God?” The word “God” is used to mean a very specific thing: a supernatural creator that defies identity, causality, etc.

Why would you seek to name something very rational, mathematical laws, after something very irrational: “God?” This both trivializes the truth of mathematical laws and gives sanction to the irrational anti-concept of “God.” I highly recommend that you reconsider this.

1) As an Objectivist, you would most likely assert that volition is self-evident. I am not confident enough in it's self-evidence to make that assertion, but I also cannot confidentally assert any alternative view. I think most psychologists would say that volition is a logical consequent of physical events in the brain, which are logical consequents of physical events outside the brain (but this is a different topic, let's not go on in this direction). That being said, just as you most likely claim that volition is self-evident, I would hypothesize that a prime mover is self-evident. I am not familiar with Dr. Peikoff's writings, but allow me to emphasize that I never made any assertions.

2) I implicitly proposed an alternative definition of "God," that being: mathematics (which, since mathematics seems to be the foundation for all science, I guess I also assumed an alternative definition for "Religion," that being: science). You define "God" as an all-powerful, ever-present, all-knowing entity. I did not define it as such.

The point was raised: "Why does it matter?" I would say that it matters to the extent that it might be true - that it might be a possible characteristic of the birth of the Universe. It's not "God" in the traditional sense. It is a knowable "God." It is a "God" that can be discovered through reason. Science would be the corresponding Religion, ever-changing in light of recent discoveries and advancements. And Faith would be faith in space and time, mathematics, and all "self-evident" concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) As an Objectivist, you would most likely assert that volition is self-evident. I am not confident enough in it's self-evidence to make that assertion, but I also cannot confidentally assert any alternative view.

Then we can agree to disagree, as I do confidently assert that volition is self-evident.

That being said, just as you most likely claim that volition is self-evident, I would hypothesize that a prime mover is self-evident.

Then you don’t at all understand the definition of “self-evident.” Unless you claim that you have directly perceived a prime mover. (i.e. you’ve “seen God with your own eyes.”)

2) I implicitly proposed an alternative definition of "God," that being: mathematics (which, since mathematics seems to be the foundation for all science, I guess I also assumed an alternative definition for "Religion," that being: science). You define "God" as an all-powerful, ever-present, all-knowing entity. I did not define it as such.

You don’t understand what I’m saying. I’m saying that you’re using an existing term, “God,” which already has a definition. It would be like inventing a new version of baseball and calling it “holocaust.” Unless you are motivated by a hatred of Jews, then it doesn’t make any sense to call it that.

Similarly, unless you’re just a religionist who’s trying to sneak in a religion under a “scientific” label, then it makes no sense to rename “the laws of mathematics” with the moniker “God.”

So that’s why I said that it was worse than just a silly idea (like if you called it “flooflah”); it is in fact a bad idea.

[edit: actually, it would be more like creating a charity for Jews and calling it Judenfrei ("Free of Jews; a term the Nazis used to describe their goals"). Yes, you could try and say you want it to mean "freedom for Jews," but it's in very very poor taste.

Just as "Judenfrei" is something that stands for the murder of Jews, so "God" is something that stands for the "murder" of science, reason, time, mathematics, and all of the values you proposed to ascribe to it.

Thus, your suggestion is in similar poor taste.]

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we can agree to disagree, as I do confidently assert that volition is self-evident.

Then you don’t at all understand the definition of “self-evident.” Unless you claim that you have directly perceived a prime mover. (i.e. you’ve “seen God with your own eyes.”)

You don’t understand what I’m saying. I’m saying that you’re using an existing term, “God,” which already has a definition. It would be like inventing a new version of baseball and calling it “holocaust.” Unless you are motivated by a hatred of Jews, then it doesn’t make any sense to call it that.

Similarly, unless you’re just a religionist who’s trying to sneak in a religion under a “scientific” label, then it makes no sense to rename “the laws of mathematics” with the moniker “God.”

So that’s why I said that it was worse than just a silly idea (like if you called it “flooflah”); it is in fact a bad idea.

[edit: actually, it would be more like creating a charity for Jews and calling it Judenfrei ("Free of Jews; a term the Nazis used to describe their goals"). Yes, you could try and say you want it to mean "freedom for Jews," but it's in very very poor taste.

Just as "Judenfrei" is something that stands for the murder of Jews, so "God" is something that stands for the "murder" of science, reason, time, mathematics, and all of the values you proposed to ascribe to it.

Thus, your suggestion is in similar poor taste.]

I would say that I've seen what may be the product of a prime mover just as much as you claim to have seen what may be the product of volition. But this, again, is a separate discussion.

I would also claim that you're definition of "God" is far too strict. One definition of God may be, "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force." I would contend that my "God" has - to an extent - a lingering effect on my life. For instance, if there existed no such thing as gravity... which a prime mover would be given credit for.

A question about volition: if it is self-evident, why do we have it? If you believe in evolution, how did we get it? Did it evolve with us? When did it happen? Which came first, volition or reason? Etc. If anyone wants answer this might we start a new topic or continue in the one already established. "The Nature of Volition."

Edited by NewYorkRoark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that I've seen what may be the product of a prime mover just as much as you claim to have seen what may be the product of volition. But this, again, is a separate discussion.

Okay, I disagree with your premise, but I agree that that is best left to another discussion.

I would also claim that you're definition of "God" is far too strict. One definition of God may be, "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force."
Even using your definition, “The laws of mathematics” are in no way shape or form “supernatural,” “a being,” “something to be worshipped,” or “a personification.”

So the term “God” is still wholly inappropriate. Add to that the fact that it is a slap in the face to the values you said you wanted to identify: reason, science, etc… it’s just not a good idea.

A question about volition: if it is self-evident, why do we have it? If you believe in evolution, how did we get it? Did it evolve with us? When did it happen? Which came first, volition or reason? Etc. If anyone wants answer this might we start a new topic or continue in the one already established. "The Nature of Volition."

I don’t have the answers to those questions. I know only that we do have it. That is all that is self-evident.

Edited by Inspector
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...