Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the existence of "God" possible?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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

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.

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

I agree that

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."
and I blame myself for not being clear. What I should be saying, which I believe I stated initially and then became less and less explicit, is that, as the laws of the United States are the creation of men, the [scientific] laws of the Universe are [possibly] the creation of a prime mover. The laws themselves aren't "God." But the prime mover is (might be).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I agree that and I blame myself for not being clear. What I should be saying, which I believe I stated initially and then became less and less explicit, is that, as the laws of the United States are the creation of men, the [scientific] laws of the Universe are [possibly] the creation of a prime mover. The laws themselves aren't "God." But the prime mover is (might be).

Okay, I don't understand. What I was discussing was the scenario that you outlined as follows:

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

So even if there is no prime mover you still want to think of the mathematical laws as "God."

That is what I thought we were discussing. I disagree with that statement. You may want to review my comments under this light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I don't understand. What I was discussing was the scenario that you outlined as follows:

So even if there is no prime mover you still want to think of the mathematical laws as "God."

That is what I thought we were discussing. I disagree with that statement. You may want to review my comments under this light.

That was a throw away comment (my comment). But, just as the prime mover would be "God" and mathematical laws it's creation, what I was trying to say was that perhaps even the infinite movement could be called "God" and the science would still be it's "Religion." The only change would be that, instead of worshiping a prime mover, one would worship an infinite concept.

But I'd really prefer to focus on the prime mover. I do think it carries some weight regarding the nature of the universe and the possible existence of a non-traditional "God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a throw away comment (my comment). But, just as the prime mover would be "God" and mathematical laws it's creation, what I was trying to say was that perhaps even the infinite movement could be called "God" and the science would still be it's "Religion." The only change would be that, instead of worshiping a prime mover, one would worship an infinite concept.

Then as I said, your choice of words is improper. You do not call science "religion," you call it science. You do not call the laws of mathematics "God" you call it reality. To do so is an insult to reason and a whitewashing of religion. If your goal is not to insult reason, then you will want to reconsider that moniker.

But I'd really prefer to focus on the prime mover. I do think it carries some weight regarding the nature of the universe and the possible existence of a non-traditional "God."

Right now your claims fall under the classification of "arbitrary." If you would be interested, I could post up the relevant passages where Dr. Peikoff distinguishes between the true, the false, and the arbitrary. (It will have to wait until I get home, however)

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...