RationalBiker Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 I'm going to revisit a section of Felipe's post from the start of this thread. I ask that, aside from continuing discussions that have already been initiated, members present a definitive proof for why the so-called entity "God" can or cannot exist. Thus, presentations of "what ifs", theories not steeped significantly in logic, and whatever else the imagination can conjure, are not supposed to be part of this exercise. I suspect Felipe's purpose in this rule was to keep this thread grounded somewhat in the domain of Objectivism. If Felipe wants to correct my interpretation, or otherwise open this topic up for larger discussion, that's fine as well. But I would suggest that until then, members please keep the above rule in mind. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Thus, presentations of "what ifs", theories not steeped significantly in logic, and whatever else the imagination can conjure, are not supposed to be part of this exercise. I suspect Felipe's purpose in this rule was to keep this thread grounded somewhat in the domain of Objectivism.Okay, I think we have a FAQ issue here. I am not a huge fan of "don't talk about X" rules, but I propose that the question of god's existence is something that should not occupy measurable bandwidth here. I do not propose that there be a flat ban on such discussions: rather, there should be a FAQ-like entry for example in the Wiki which addresses the topic, to which all such discussions are referred as a starting point. This emphatically does not preclude discussion beyond the arguments contained therein, but it at least presupposes understanding of those arguments so that at least we might see new arguments. I understand what that entails; I'm asking whether others think this would be a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlanden Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 (edited) The first question (one that could be part of the FAQ) should be "Why isn't there just nothing?" or i.o.w. "Why is there anything at all?" (material things and conciousness). The explanation of everything around us, in whatever dimension - if a rational explanation exists - must be something derivable from reason. Something you can know exists without requiring any further explanation, and something you can confirm by reason alone, not by observation of the world around us. There is only one group of things that exist eternally, without cause, things that exist in and of their own, things of which you can know that they exist, even if you were a conciousness floating in nothingness without any experience of life, any knowledge of any existing universe: Concepts and ideas. These are abstract things. If at all, the ultimate rational explanation for why there isn't just nothing, must lie somewhere in the realm of concepts and ideas, the obvious existence of which must somehow neccesitate the existence of the physical and the concious. All non-abstract things must somehow be a neccesary consequence of the logic that exists in the realm of concepts and ideas. No other explanation of any other nature could be purely rational and ultimate at the same time. Just take the discovery of antimatter. People claim that it is God, but in the end it is just something you can weigh, something unexplained (and thus requires another explanation), and above all, something you couldn't know that it exists in the first place, if you didn't discover it empirically. Edited November 20, 2005 by Vanderlanden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 No, the reason is existence exists and its corrollary that existence is identity. A conciousness without anything to be consious of is a contradiction in terms. And being that a consciousness has an identity, and that it exists it is impossible to float around in a void while somehow automatically thinking of "abstract" concepts that do not exist. Also concepts are not simply some Platonic abstractions. They are derived from reality, i.e., from existence via man's senses and THEN integrated via man's consciousness into concepts. Hope this helps you a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlanden Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Thanks for answering. Also concepts are not simply some Platonic abstractions. They are derived from reality, i.e., from existence via man's senses and THEN integrated via man's consciousness into concepts. But I have a problem with that. Because the sum of all inner angles in a triangle IS 180 degrees, independent of anyone's conciousness, and independent of whether anyone has ever thought about that. And also, you said "they [concepts] are derived from reality,... and THEN integrated... into concepts". That means concepts are integrated into concepts, meaning that they already exist prior to men "integrating" them. What I need is a proof via contradiction: I have to assume that there can be nothing, and find a way of leading this assumption to its logical contradiction. Hope this isn't too elementary to be posted in this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) Thanks for answering. But I have a problem with that. Because the sum of all inner angles in a triangle IS 180 degrees, independent of anyone's conciousness, and independent of whether anyone has ever thought about that. As long as you assume certain axioms which by their very nature cannot be proved, then yes, the sum of the angles in a triangle can be proved to be 180 degrees. But if you assume different axioms (those of a non-euclidean geometry), then this sum will not be 180 degrees. How do we know which axiom set gives results which correctly describe reality? Empirical observation via our senses. What I need is a proof via contradiction: I have to assume that there can be nothing, and find a way of leading this assumption to its logical contradiction.Well, Descartes gave a pretty solid proof. Assume that there is nothing. Then who is doing the assuming? You. Hence you exist. Hence something exists. Hence there cannot be nothing. Edited November 23, 2005 by Hal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kandoo Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 God is made from mans mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Well, Descartes gave a pretty solid proof. Assume that there is nothing. Then who is doing the assuming? You. Hence you exist. Hence something exists. Hence there cannot be nothing. Descartes' statement "cogito, ergo sum" is as clear a statement of the primacy of consciousness approach to metaphysics as any I've ever heard. Whether you translate it as "I think, therefore I am" or "I think, therefore I exist", the meaning is essentially the same. Ayn Rand identified (correctly, IMO) the primacy of consciousness as the most important error one can commit in metaphyisics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlanden Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Well, Descartes gave a pretty solid proof. Assume that there is nothing. Then who is doing the assuming? You. Hence you exist. Hence something exists. Hence there cannot be nothing. I'm sorry, but this isn't a legal proof IMO. If you assume that there is nothing, you may not ask "who is doing the assuming?". By asking this question you are not sticking to your assumption. You are resorting to something that is not derived from your assumption. If you assume that there is nothing, you must conclude that there's no one to do the assuming. So far so good. From there you can continue and try to make further conclusions, ALWAYS drawing them from what you have already derived from you assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 The first question (one that could be part of the FAQ) should be "Why isn't there just nothing?" or i.o.w. "Why is there anything at all?" (material things and conciousness). I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but identity itself contradicts the idea of there being nothing. Knowing that there is identity is evidence of consciousness. I don't think one can prove a thing is material, though that likely depends on what you mean by "material things." That any good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maydaysos Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 (edited) im new here and just thought i would add my 2 cent. i will try to express my view clearly- -first off god does exist- heres my proof- for god to exist we have to change the meaning or defenition of god. the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men" idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" MY DEFINITION OFF god is simply 'that which is' thats why god is in everything/all knowing/omnipotent. god is not a being that created the univers in 7 days (time is a temperal measurement any way) god is the process that created the universe- or, god is the evolution of mass/energy and speed. (mass and energy is the same thing) god is everything, god is all the atoms, all things that make the universe. that is why we are made in his "image" put simply if there was nothing, then there would be nothing- but sense there is "that which is" then there IS god. i am not a relegious person. i am highly scientific. Humans at our current level of intellect try to give purpose to the way things are. but remember, the way things are do not need purpose in order to exist. it just does. the whole use of god, to explain what happens when you die, is where people have problems. It is very hard for humans to imagine reality without the presence of there "consciousness" everything is conscious to some extent. a rock floation in space is affected by time/space and in turn is affecting time/space i am fully prepared to aurgue my point. here is some art i did while thinking. it is not done yet. hope yall like it Edited November 26, 2005 by Maydaysos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 Welcome to the forum Maydaysos. If I understand, in your view God is everything that exists. Am I stating your position correctly? everything is conscious to some extent. a rock floation in space is affected by time/space and in turn is affecting time/space i am fully prepared to aurgue my point. You need to provide us with your definition of consciousness. I'm not aware of any definition of the term that would describe a rock as being conscious. p.s. If you pay more attention to grammar, spelling and capitalization it will help others to understand the points you're making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlanden Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 (edited) I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but identity itself contradicts the idea of there being nothing. Knowing that there is identity is evidence of consciousness. I don't think one can prove a thing is material, though that likely depends on what you mean by "material things." That any good? Well, let's see. I'd like to elaborate further on that "identity"-thing, that seems to be the key I've been looking for. How would you define identity? You need to provide us with your definition of consciousness. I'm not aware of any definition of the term that would describe a rock as being conscious. I'm interested in this, too. Because I can't imagine conciousness being something material, something you could build, e.g. in a robot. It must therefore also be indestroyable, since you can't touch it. That's why I can't imagine that when you die, you really cease to exist. Edited November 27, 2005 by Vanderlanden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 It must therefore also be indestroyable, since you can't touch it. That's why I can't imagine that when you die, you really cease to exist. Explain the logic behind the idea that just because men can't touch something, it's indestructible. Does man represent the only process in the universe that is capable of destruction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
She Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 I'm a newbie here, but not a newbie to Ayn Rand. I first read Atlas Shrugged in 1983. Hello all. Unless I've missed something, I come at the God thing from a different perspective than I've seen discussed. It seems like much discussion, not just here, but all over, discusses God and Religion as the same thing. In my mind, they aren't the same thing. Religion exists. But does God? Nothing that I can see, in a discussion of God, says that God is what religion describes him (her or it.) Religion looks to be a development of human fear and lack of understanding, while Organized Religion looks like a device for controlling large groups of fearful people. I can find value in neither version. But God? Hmmm... Once upon a time people thought the earth was flat. All methods of identifying the earth indicated that it was flat. It turned out that the earth is round (Elliptical for the purists), but it still looks flat to me! What does this teach me? 1.That there is knowledge I do not possess. 2.There is widely accepted knowledge that I may believe to be true that isn’t. 20 Years ago, medical science told me my newborn son would die. All current knowledge said he must. Yet, he is now 20 years old. Medical science could not explain his survival. It possessed no understanding of why he didn’t die. He was supposed to die. They called him a Miracle Baby. Does this, in any way, prove the existence of a God? No, it does not. I mention these things because I find it is important to note that A is A based upon the knowledge we, as a developing species, have of identifying A. Clearly, our knowledge is not always correct. Just as clearly, we do not always recognize that lack at the point in time where we make our identification. We can recognize that something exists but we are not always able to determine that it exists as we perceive it. The reverse must then be true. We can recognize that something doesn't exist.... Still, it would be irrational to conclude, based upon the current evidence, that I KNOW for a fact there is a God. By the same token, it would also just as irrational to assume that I KNOW for a fact there is NOT a God. A lack of conclusive information is a lack of conclusive information. Thus, As a member of a developing species who’s history has proven itself to be an adaptable species that uses rational thought to survive and progress, I cannot conclude that we have now learned all there is to know or that we have ceased to learn. Historical information tells me we have much more to learn. I have determined that I do not, at this time, have the knowledge to make a rational conclusion on the unknowns that do indeed exist. I.E. That my son is alive when his life cannot be rationally explained by the current information does not mean the future will not discover the missing information. That I believe there is missing information does not make me irrational, based upon the study of human's track record. So… While we are aware of a good bit of information that would explain why Gods were invented I wonder... Can there be information that is currently unknown that would provide alternative reasons for the conclusions of our species when they made the various Gods? The ghosts? The spirits? The ideas of Life after death? ( The God is flat, but later we discover that the God is actually round, even though it still looks flat.) And, does this information mean that, using the current language and knowledge we have to describe the phenomenon, there can be a God? Yes. There can be. (Which produces the question "What are the properties of a Round God as opposed to a Flat God? ) So...at this stage of human development and the resultant missing information, I can not make a conclusion of the existence, or non-existence, of a God. But just because humans once didn't have a light bulb didn't mean one would never exist. I guess that after years of thought, I've determined that thinking produces ideas and ideas produce change. Thus, if I do not ever change my mind, that means I'm no longer thinking but merely remembering what I once thought. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your [and my] philosophy." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariana Binetta Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Can God exist? She can do anything she wants---she's God!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Still, it would be irrational to conclude, based upon the current evidence, that I KNOW for a fact there is a God. By the same token, it would also just as irrational to assume that I KNOW for a fact there is NOT a God. A lack of conclusive information is a lack of conclusive information. Two questions: 1) What would constitute proof of the non-existence of something? 2) There is no proof that you are not merely a brain in a vat wired into a supercomputer running a simulated reality program to fool you into thinking that you read Atlas Shrugged in 1983. In the absence of proof against that notion, do you consider it an open question, a possibility that cannot be ruled out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 2) There is no proof that you are not merely a brain in a vat wired into a supercomputer running a simulated reality program to fool you into thinking that you read Atlas Shrugged in 1983. In the absence of proof against that notion, do you consider it an open question, a possibility that cannot be ruled out? I'm glad you addressed this because I was going to have to break out my "Giant Purple Space Goat" example again. That theory of the creation of the universe entails that the the universe was pooped out of it's rear-end. So far, no one has disproved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Can God exist? Can Unicorns...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 I guess that after years of thought, I've determined that thinking produces ideas and ideas produce change. Thus, if I do not ever change my mind, that means I'm no longer thinking but merely remembering what I once thought.Is there some new piece of evidence you've discovered that convinces you there is a God? Is that a piece of evidence of the senses or something unique to your consciousness? If there is such evidence, perhaps you can share it with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlanden Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Explain the logic behind the idea that just because men can't touch something, it's indestructible. Does man represent the only process in the universe that is capable of destruction? What I meant was that conciousness isn't material. You can't really reproduce it and then place it on a robot that should emulate a human being. As for your 2nd question, the answer is no, but I don't understand what that question was aiming at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 What I meant was that conciousness isn't material.So, you do not mean "consciousness" as in "conscious being", but as a faculty? Are you saying that since it is a faculty it is not material, analogous to eyesight not being material? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
She Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 (edited) Hello Again... I'm confused about how to respond to some of the responses to my post. The Matrix? Purple Goats? and the response to my thought about stagnant thinking is baffling. This is an Objectivist forum based on the ideas of Ayn Rand, right? I'm not lost and wandering in some twilight zone? I'm not meaning to be harsh here, but I get the impression that you might have read my post with the intent to respond, rather than the intent to understand. Could you please check and see before we move on? Edited November 28, 2005 by She Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xavier Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 (edited) She, I re-read your post, and the comments about the brain in the vat and the purple space goats apply. Still, it would be irrational to conclude, based upon the current evidence, that I KNOW for a fact there is a God. By the same token, it would also just as irrational to assume that I KNOW for a fact there is NOT a God. A lack of conclusive information is a lack of conclusive information. Your position is agnosticism. Here's my personal example: There is no proof that pink pixies with purple polka dot hats created the second ring of Saturn. There is no proof that pink pixies with purple polka dot hats did not create the second ring of Saturn. Therefore, I'll be agnostic and avoid making any conclusions about pink pixies with purple polka dot hats creating the second ring of Saturn. Of course, you can substitute an infinite number of equally absurd and arbitrary assertions. The question is, is it better to be agnostic on every single one of these claims? Or to dismiss them as what they are: absurd and arbitrary? Note that knowledge does not require infallibility. If it did, no one would know anything. Edited November 28, 2005 by xavier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 As for your 2nd question, the answer is no, but I don't understand what that question was aiming at. I wasn't the one who inquired about your definition of consciousness. However, my question was aimed at this statement you made; It must therefore also be indestroyable, since you can't touch it. That's why I can't imagine that when you die, you really cease to exist. This statement implies that since you (which I assume by "you" you mean any human, not just "you" as a reference to the other poster) can't touch consciousness physically, it is indestructible. If there are other causes of destruction besides humans, then there could be other causes for the destruction of consciousness. I do not see any way you can derive that consciousness is indestructible based on current scientific knowledge, or simply by a man's inability to "touch it". This suggests to me that you believe in "souls" or some similar mystical idea, though I certainly may be in error thinking that. Do you believe that there are entities of consciousness roaming around out there? 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.