How Do The 3 Axioms Explain What Everybody Wants To Know?

[DavidOdden]

But what then makes certain things about those objects facts?

Let's be concrete. I have here on my desk a naturally-occurring stone sphere. That sphere is a fact; it's roundness is a fact, it's being here is a fact, as is its composition of some amount of silicon, iron, and a few other elements. Its weight of about a pound is a fact. Also, the walk on the beach where I found it is a fact. Are you asking, why is this rock basically spherical? Something to do with the action of the sea and the law of gravity; why iron and silicon?, well, that's something about the inside of the earth being mostly iron and silicon and not rubber cement.

What makes it a fact that certain rules apply to the given objects?

I don't think that "rules apply" to spheres that you find on the beach, not in the sense you mean. In the case of abstract objects, geometrical creations, they are man-made. A mathematical torus follows the torus rule because if it didn't, it would be a sphere or a disc. I'm having problems understanding what you mean by various of your questions: it would help to concretize them with examples. What is this object and what are the properties A, B that you're referring to? The cause of my stone's roundness is because of something, which is quite different from the cause of the roundness of geometric spheres. So I can't answer your question without knowing which object you mean.

You say geometric objects cannot exist without a consciousness to create them? Then what is the identity of these objects?

Not to speak for Dave, -- well maybe a little -- but, what he said. The "connected to" relationship isn't the same as the "is identical to", so circles and metabidiminished icosahedrons aren't squishy grey blobs.

[spadeaspade]

Dave,

Ok, now, my need is not 'emotional' i.e. I am not saying that 'I know and still have a need' because this is absurd - if I 'knew' there wouldn't be any need left. It is a rational need. To put it your way - I don't understand why it is irrational to seek an explanation for the existence of existence, which is a logical need as you agree.

So, maybe the issue is the understanding of the different 'terms/concepts' involved like 'existence', 'causation', 'events', 'actions' etc. Also, you didn't say anything about the example of the flower and the seed.

Let's see whether we agree on the terms :

1. 'Existence' is anything and everything that 'is' (physical/concrete and abstract). And it is independent of consciousness.(As a subset of this we will also have to define 'matter', 'form' - in which case we look to physics also)

2. 'Consciousness' is the faculty/medium which (alongwith reason) acknowledges or 'understands' existence (the why, what, how, when etc of it)

3. 'Causation' states that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause.(Here again we will have to define 'cause' and 'effect'). It is independent of consciousness.

4. 'Events' are occurences at a particular point in space and 'time' (Again we will also have to define 'time' first - again in which case we look to physics also).

5. 'Actions' are 'movement' or 'motion'.

And Event = Cause + Action + Effect. Again refer to my example of the seed and flower.

Here is what I found on Wiki :

Aristotle, a great mind and ontologist, is the first who saw that All causes of things are beginnings; that we have scientific knowledge when we know the cause; that to know a thing's existence is to know the reason why it is.(Wiki entry for Causality) Do you agree? (I don't think here what is meant by 'thing' is a purely 'physical'/'concrete' thing - in the sense having a physical form; abstracts, for eg. the properties or attributes of physical things, are also included. More in the sense 'to know anything's existence is to know the reason why it is'.)

I haven't studied Aristotle as yet but from a layman's understanding of his stance, he talked about a 'Prime Mover' or the 'One' who/which causes existence. And that this 'One' is without characteristics, form etc so that Causality(or for that matter anything else) doesn't apply to it ; in the sense this 'One' just exists or 'it just is'. Is this just going one step back from what you are saying? I.e. it is not irrational to ask why existence exists but it is irrational to ask why the one who/which caused it exists? Now here we go to the classic debate over existence as creation and the definition of 'creation' and so on.

To put it differently, do you agree that 'Causality' exists? If yes, then why does it exist?

Also, it seems to me, according to you,

1.Existence = Everything that exists

2.Existence is eternal i.e. it always was, is and always will be (i.e. there is no cause for it as you say)

3.So, Everything that exists is eternal in the above mentioned way.

Now, does this mean that the tree outside my house, you, me, this computer etc etc is eternal? If not, then either of the above statements is not correct.

[dondigitalia]

I haven't studied Aristotle as yet but from a layman's understanding of his stance, he talked about a 'Prime Mover' or the 'One' who/which causes existence.

That isn't entirely correct. Aristotle's Prime Mover is that which puts all things in motion, but NOT that which creates or causes existence. It was Aquinas who turned the Prime Mover into the cause of existence.

Because of Parmenides, here is no Greek thinker who ever talked about existence as having been caused. In fact, the Greeks would have said it is impossible for existence to have been caused by anything at all, and they would have cited the exact same reasons that were given earlier in this thread. The notion that existence was caused by anything is unique to Judaeo-Christian philosophy.

Edited March 4, 2006 by dondigitalia

[DavidOdden]

4. 'Events' are occurences at a particular point in space and 'time' (Again we will also have to define 'time' first - again in which case we look to physics also).

5. 'Actions' are 'movement' or 'motion'.

I would say that events are actions at a particular space/time (not occurrences, because then I'd have to ask myself what an occurrence is. I am not sure that I want to limit the concept of "action" to just motion, even in my most reductionist moments. But I don't see a major disagreement based on these terms.

to know a thing's existence is to know the reason why it is.(Wiki entry for Causality) Do you agree?

No, I don't. This is similar to what Plato says (pretending to be Socrates) in Theaetetus 147b "Then he who does not know what science or knowledge is, has no knowledge of the art or science of making shoes?" You can know that a thing exists without knowing why it exists or what you can do with it. The only knowledge you must have about why a thing exists is if you want to know why it exists.

To put it differently, do you agree that 'Causality' exists? If yes, then why does it exist?

Bzzzt! Illogical! Illogical! I think the problem is that you left the word "why" out of your analysis. Why (no pun intended) don't we temporarily drop the discussion of existence and causality, and simply analyse what "why" is about? Why it is cold on top of Mt. Everest? It's way up in the sky and the density of air at that altitude is quite low, so that energy from the sun's rays is not retained (skipping over lots of details). We can talk about that "why" question in terms of one fact causing another fact. The cause is distinct from the effect, so the tree is not self-causing, it is caused by some seed (and the tree can cause a different seed which can cause another tree). For existence to be caused, there would have to exist a separate Existence-Causer. But that is a contradiction -- if there exists an causer of any kind, then -- since it exists -- it is an aspect of existence; therefore, it is not separate, and cannot cause itself.

Now, does this mean that the tree outside my house, you, me, this computer etc etc is eternal? If not, then either of the above statements is not correct.

That's a plausible-looking argument, but here are some problems. Regarding eternality, the claim is not that there is an imaginary timeline going infinitely far into the past and infinitely far into the future; rather, if nothing exists, then questions about "what about before there was anything" or "what about after there is anything" simply don't mean anything, again because time is not outside of reality -- it is an aspect of reality. Second, you're conflating the simple fact of existence with the actual substance. For example, we know that electrons and protons exist; but it is entirely plausible that no electrons or protons existed 3.6 bazillion years ago, and that something about the expansion of the universe allowed electrons and protons to come into existence (and then atoms, and then big piles of gas, then stars, then planets, and then birdies). What is eternal is existence; but the nature of existence is mutable, and in fact is never non-changing.

[spadeaspade]

That isn't entirely correct. Aristotle's Prime Mover is that which puts all things in motion, but NOT that which creates or causes existence. It was Aquinas who turned the Prime Mover into the cause of existence.

Now, what does this mean exactly? I didn't get you. Are you agreeing with the Prime Mover existing in the first place or are you just saying that Aristotle meant Him to put all things in motion? What does it mean to 'put a thing in motion'? Does that mean that it was not so before it? But we know that 'motion' is a defining character of anything that exists in the sense that if we take away the motion the said thing will no longer exist. So, if this Prime Mover put things 'in motion' he could also have first caused them to 'be'. And why did he put things 'in motion' - that is mean them to exist?

You can know that a thing exists without knowing why it exists or what you can do with it.

Of course you can. I never contested that. I am not saying (I think you seem to think I mean) that 'does reality/existence exist'? That's a stupid question. I understand that it does.

and simply analyse what "why" is about? Why it is cold on top of Mt. Everest? It's way up in the sky and the density of air at that altitude is quite low, so that energy from the sun's rays is not retained (skipping over lots of details). We can talk about that "why" question in terms of one fact causing another fact. The cause is distinct from the effect, so the tree is not self-causing, it is caused by some seed (and the tree can cause a different seed which can cause another tree).

Ok, now what you are taking as 'why' is what I take as 'how'. How is it that it is cold.....etc. So, according to me that is not a 'why' question. It is a 'how'. What I am talking about is 'why' as a 'moving cause' (I think this is Aristotle) or a 'motive' (and this is AR). Also, when the question 'why something is' is answered as 'for so and so or to so and so' it gives the 'final cause'(Aristotle) and 'purpose' (AR) not the moving cause or motive. I am talking about the moving cause or motive.

For existence to be caused, there would have to exist a separate Existence-Causer. But that is a contradiction -- if there exists an causer of any kind, then -- since it exists -- it is an aspect of existence; therefore, it is not separate, and cannot cause itself.

You are assuming here that the 'Existence-Causer' is 'separate' or 'outside' existence. Why does He have to be separate or outside and not a part of it with some special 'powers' (for lack of a better word) for Himself by which he can cause everything else we call existence and also be a part of it? You are also assuming that He cannot cause Himself. Why? I think (my understanding which is not complete) this is what Aristotle meant by the 'One' and he also described 'It' as formless, characteristics-less etc. (Incidentally, this is similar to the description of 'Brahma'. Also, when AR says, 'I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.' what it means is 'Aham Brahmaasmi' (according to me).- remember my study for comparison?)

Why is the concept of an Existence-Causer who is a part of existence and is Himself without any form or charateristics so absurd or illogical? Because we have no 'evidence' for it? That the Earth goes around the Sun was equally absurd (many of the rational minds - except Galileo - then believed the Earth to be the centre and the Sun to go around it because there was no evidence for the opposite and called whoever supported the opposite view absurd) before the opposite was known. And it was a 'rational mind' of Galileo who challenged it or rather didn't 'just accept' it because there was no evidence. Taking up a study of something, no matter how absurd it sounds, is the mark of a rational mind. I am not saying that the so called absurd thought has to be 'accepted' before sufficient study and thought. Just that it is not to be called absurd or illogical before it is properly studied through and through. I am not alluding that in our case you have not studied it or something like that. You will have to tell me that. If you say you have and then come to a conclusion, fine. I would like to know the reasoning.

Also, the other day I was reading something about the WSM. I didn't get exactly what it says, but in brief (according to my layman understanding) what it says is that 'Space' is 'in motion' and due to this it 'creates' spherical structure which then is what is known as 'matter'. In this sense, the 'Space' is continually 'vibrating' and is 'dynamic'. So, essentially, Space in a wave form is matter. Also, when forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein) What does all this mean? Doesn't it allude to the 'One' as described by Aristotle or our Existence-Causer?. Space is formless and characteristics-less yet we know it 'exists' or 'is'.

Ok, we could do one thing instead of going on like this. Why don't you explain me your reasoning as :

Proposition, Assumptions, Definitions, Proof, Conclusion. That would save a lot of time. If you don't mind, that is.

[Hal]

But we know that 'motion' is a defining character of anything that exists in the sense that if we take away the motion the said thing will no longer exist.

In modern (post-Galileo) physics, this is simply wrong; motion isnt an intrinsic characteristic of objects, since it's reference frame dependent. Anything moving at a constant speed can be taken to be at rest by choosing your frame appropriately; theres no such thing as 'objective motion' (or objective rest). The classic example of this is being in a plane. To someone outside the plane, youre moving at 800km/h. But to a person inside the plane, you appear to be stationary. And to someone looking at the plane from mars, you will appear to be moving at over 10000km/h (or whatever speed planet earth is moving relative to mars at). None of these answers is more right than the others.

In Aristotlean physics, things were different and motion was objective. But I doubt that Aristotle believed that things have to be moving in order to exist. Why would anyone think that?

Ok, now what you are taking as 'why' is what I take as 'how'. How is it that it is cold.....etc. So, according to me that is not a 'why' question. It is a 'how'. What I am talking about is 'why' as a 'moving cause' (I think this is Aristotle)or a 'motive' (and this is AR). Also, when the question 'why something is' is answered as 'for so and so or to so and so' it gives the 'final cause'(Aristotle) and 'purpose' (AR) not the moving cause or motive. I am talking about the moving cause or motive

The Aristotlean terminology here is "efficient cause" for the thing that physically started the motion (eg by giving it a kick).

Why is the concept of an Existence-Causer who is a part of existence and is Himself without any form or charateristics so absurd or illogical?

Because its redundant and explains nothing. If everything needs a cause, then the existence-causer needs a cause too. And if you want to say that the existence-causer doesnt need a cause, then theres no reason to assume that the rest of existence does either. Edited March 5, 2006 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

Ok, now what you are taking as 'why' is what I take as 'how'. How is it that it is cold.....etc. So, according to me that is not a 'why' question. It is a 'how'. What I am talking about is 'why' as a 'moving cause' (I think this is Aristotle) or a 'motive' (and this is AR). Also, when the question 'why something is' is answered as 'for so and so or to so and so' it gives the 'final cause'(Aristotle) and 'purpose' (AR) not the moving cause or motive. I am talking about the moving cause or motive.

Before we go further, we really need to clear up some simple concepts (why, how, motive, moving cause). The term "motive" is only applicable to conceptual beings (man), so rocks don't have motives for falling. I have no idea what a moving cause is, and I suggest not explaining it in terms of Aristotle, just explain it in plain words, assuming that I have never even heard of Aristotle. I don't use "how" the way you did, but at least from my (weak) understanding of that usage, I don't see any difference between "Why is it so cold" and "How is it that it's so cold". If you are not asking "What event caused existence to arise", then please re-state the question so that I won't get confused about what you're asking.

There are a few other points I will briefly emphasize: there is no god; Rand was saying something entirely different in saying "I need no warrant for being" than what was meant with "Aham Brahma asmi"; it should be self-evident that it is a contradiction to say "any cause is an aspect of existence" and "some cause is not an aspect of existence". It would be more productive to concentrate on clarifying the nature of the "why" question, how "why" relates to "causation", and what "existence" refers to.

[dondigitalia]

Now, what does this mean exactly? I didn't get you. Are you agreeing with the Prime Mover existing in the first place or are you just saying that Aristotle meant Him to put all things in motion? What does it mean to 'put a thing in motion'? Does that mean that it was not so before it? But we know that 'motion' is a defining character of anything that exists in the sense that if we take away the motion the said thing will no longer exist. So, if this Prime Mover put things 'in motion' he could also have first caused them to 'be'. And why did he put things 'in motion' - that is mean them to exist?

First off, no I do not agree with Aristotle on this.

For the Greeks, motion was synonomous with change. And we don't know that motion, even in the Greek sense, is a defining character of anything that exists. In fact, that was one of the things that Aristotle argued against.

In Aristotlean physics, things were different and motion was objective. But I doubt that Aristotle believed that things have to be moving in order to exist. Why would anyone think that?

I'm in agreement with you, but I want to point out that there were some pre-Socratics (Heraclitus and the Sophists) who thought that things did have to be in motion in order to exist. Even Plato, while he didn't regard the world of forms as changing and in motion, did regard the real, sensory world in that way.

[dondigitalia]

Ok, now what you are taking as 'why' is what I take as 'how'. How is it that it is cold.....etc. So, according to me that is not a 'why' question. It is a 'how'. What I am talking about is 'why' as a 'moving cause' (I think this is Aristotle) or a 'motive' (and this is AR). Also, when the question 'why something is' is answered as 'for so and so or to so and so' it gives the 'final cause'(Aristotle) and 'purpose' (AR) not the moving cause or motive. I am talking about the moving cause or motive.

It is equally meaningless to talk about existence have having a motive as it is to talk about existence as having a beginning. Motive, like all teleological concepts, is only applicable to living things.

I think (my understanding which is not complete) this is what Aristotle meant by the 'One' and he also described 'It' as formless, characteristics-less etc.

Please do not continue to cite Aristotle's metaphysics until you understand it fully.

Why is the concept of an Existence-Causer who is a part of existence and is Himself without any form or charateristics so absurd or illogical? Because we have no 'evidence' for it?

Because if an existence-causer is part of existence, he would have had to exist prior to causing existence, so you are positing the existence of something outside of existence, i.e. the existence of a non-existent. The entire idea of an existence-causer is self-contradictory.

Space is formless and characteristics-less yet we know it 'exists' or 'is'.

Space is not characteristicless. Space is a positional relationship between entities. It's characteristics are the positions of the entities in relation to one another. No existent is charateristic-less. That is a self-contradiction. If something has no characteristics, then it is nothing.

Ok, we could do one thing instead of going on like this. Why don't you explain me your reasoning as :

Proposition, Assumptions, Definitions, Proof, Conclusion. That would save a lot of time. If you don't mind, that is.

This isn't possible because the entire question is absurd.

[Vanderlanden]

Let's be concrete. I have here on my desk a naturally-occurring stone sphere. That sphere is a fact; it's roundness is a fact, it's being here is a fact, as is its composition of some amount of silicon, iron, and a few other elements. Its weight of about a pound is a fact. Also, the walk on the beach where I found it is a fact. Are you asking, why is this rock basically spherical? Something to do with the action of the sea and the law of gravity; why iron and silicon?, well, that's something about the inside of the earth being mostly iron and silicon and not rubber cement.

You say that sphere is a fact. But that doesn't fit to your notion that facts are independent of consciousness: It is true, according to JMeganSnow, that that 'sphere' would not exist without your making it up. By saying "I have here on my desk a naturally-occurring stone sphere", you are sparing a lot of words: The stone sphere is actually not on your desk. What is on your desk is just a naturally-occurring stone, but in your consciousness you have formed the concept of a sphere and then integrated the stone into that concept, hence you say you 'have' a naturally-occurring stone sphere on your desk, while in fact you have a stone that can be integrated into the concept of a sphere in your mind, right?

Edited March 19, 2006 by Vanderlanden

[Vanderlanden]

I don't think that "rules apply" to spheres that you find on the beach, not in the sense you mean. In the case of abstract objects, geometrical creations, they are man-made. A mathematical torus follows the torus rule if it didn't, it would be a sphere or a disc. I'm having problems understanding what you mean by various of your questions: it would help to concretize them with examples. What is this object and what are the properties A, B that you're referring to? The cause of my stone's roundness is because of something, which is quite different from the cause of the roundness of geometric spheres. So I can't answer your question without knowing which object you mean.

The object could be a triangle with edges of equal length. Property A would be the property of the equality of those lengths, property B the property of the equality of all inner angles. As you know from my last posting, I don't know what to make of the notion that you "find spheres on the beach" anymore, if spheres exist only in consciousness.

[DavidOdden]

You say that sphere is a fact. But that doesn't fit to your notion that facts are independent of consciousness:

Okay, I see what the problem is here. A fact is metaphysical, so it's something out there, and it is out there independent of any consciousness. But a fact isn't a random collection of physical stuff (for example, imagine numbering the atoms of the universe, and then selecting a random collection of a billion atoms -- that would not be a "fact"). It doesn't even have to be a tangible object (an event is a fact). A fact is an aspect of reality that you can focus on, i.e. it is something that exists. Would it make things clearer if we just spoke of existents? "Fact" and "existent" really just differ in terms of how you're looking at them. So there is an entity, and that is what's primary. I'm not trying to bury you with terminology, but the problem is that people commonly use the word "fact" to refer to a true proposition (which is therefore an epistemological thing) as well as the aspect of existence being described. We try to control the chaos by using fact to refer to the existent, and not the proposition.

What is on your desk is just a naturally-occurring stone, but in your consciousness you have formed the concept of a sphere and then integrated the stone into that concept, hence you say you 'have' a naturally-occurring stone sphere on your desk, while in fact you have a stone that can be integrated into the concept of a sphere in your mind, right?

We could make this really long, by also dissecting "desk". Stone? On? But yes, some entity-1 has some relation-2 to an entity-3, etc. The identification of the thing as a sphere is a conceptual product, but the thing itself is metaphysical -- it's an entity (which, like all good entities, has an identity).

As I recall (sorry, I'll have to review the thread to be sure, and tempus fugit at the moment) the basic issue is whether concepts like "triangle", "sphere" plus the mathematically expressed truisms about them that we have expressed as laws of mathematics are Platonically "out there" in a disembodied form, free of both existence and consciousness. What is physically out there are various existents, and those existents have their various identities. Because of the nature of the universe (gravity, especially), spheres aren't rare oddities, so consciousnesses grasp the existence and nature of these sphere-shaped entities often enough that it is useful to form a specific concept "sphere" (unlike metabidiminished icosahedrons, which I always have to look up to remind myself what the referent is -- don't think I've ever found one on the ground).

[spadeaspade]

DaveOdden

First and foremost, my need for an expanation is satisfied, I no longer have a need for 'explanation' of existence. But this has not come by reaching the conclusion that it just is. Because this conclusion does not satisfy my logic or reason. The only conclusion that I can come to using reason and logic is that there is a Creator who created existence. Everything that exists did not come to be just as a matter of accident or 'chance'. It was created and if it was created there has to be a Creator. It is the doing of a mind - a brilliant one. If I ask you if everything just is, then how did it come to be in the first place, you say there was something which you don't know as yet. Then why not a Creator creating it? This seems to be more logical than saying there was something and somehow it happened but I don't know what. As you said ,"For example, we know that electrons and protons exist; but it is entirely plausible that no electrons or protons existed 3.6 bazillion years ago, and that something about the expansion of the universe allowed electrons and protons to come into existence (and then atoms, and then big piles of gas, then stars, then planets, and then birdies). What is eternal is existence; but the nature of existence is mutable, and in fact is never non-changing." Now, if it is plausible that there were no protons or electrons, then why is not plausible that something or someone created whatever it was. We don't know exactly how everything was formed (something about the expansion of the universe allowed.......) Now, why this something cannot be a creation? Also the nature of existence is mutable you say, now who decides what the nature of existence is or should be - a chance or existence itself has some kind of 'will' to decide that for itself? (Isn't this absurd?) How did that nature of existence come about to be? We know the laws that govern that part of reality which we percieve and these laws don't seem to be a matter of 'mutation' - Mutation itself is a law. How does the thing that mutates know what to do to mutate or how to do it or what to mutate to? The rules or laws that govern these things are not arbitrary but well thought of - there is reason in them (And that is how we can know of them in the first place) Is reason itself a matter of chance or arbitrary - can there be anything more absurd than this? No, all things, the rules and the laws and relations between those are not a matter of chance or are not arbitrary - these were carefully thought of and created.

As to why he did it, no idea, but logically only one reason comes to mind - his own pleasure similar to any other human creator.(Maybe this is what they mean by man being created in the image of God although I am not sure what their definition of God is - if you take mine then maybe this is true)

No analogies will be accurate but still one may compare with a software programmer and the program he creates or a director and a play he directs alongwith the evergoing improvistaions and new versions that come out.

You say there is no God. Can you prove or deduce this conclusively? I think not.(Still if you can, you are welcome). Whatever argument you have put through till now, I don't know, something is missing which I am not able to get at - I am not an expert in the art of argument : the forming of premises and conclusion and identifying the hidden ones and refuting those or accepting those etc. - so there is something in your argument which seems not correct but I am not able to identify it.(There are many premises on which your conclusin that what I am saying is a contradiction is based but the only one you are taking as wrong is the existence of Creator. What about the others?) Also, agreed I cannot deduce or prove conclusively that there is God. As I said, I am not an expert.

On the other hand if I use induction, there is ample proof to believe that a Creator (what u call God) 'created' everything in the universe which we are calling 'existence'. Everywhere and everything I percieve, this is the only conclusion I come to - I am not able to tell myself that all this just was, is and always will be when I know that things and events don't happen just like that, they are created and they change and they are destroyed and so on. This doesn't seem to me a matter of chance but the work of a creator who lays down the rules for everything. Nothing can just be without a Creator. So, here existence is everything that was created by a Creator. Change or creation-destruction is an indisputable aspect of reality or existence. Everything is created and everything is destroyed and then something else is created and it is destroyed - so on and so forth. We term this in common parlance as 'cycle' - we talk of climatic cycles,business cycles etc. But still every cycle has to start somewhere sometime by someone or something.

As to proof or evidence that a Creator exists - just as when she was asked if John Galt really existed AR answered that the fact that her husband (Frank) exists is proof that John Galt does - the fact that I am (or you are or AR was) is sufficient proof that He is. I don't need any other.

Also, I don't know what your definition of God is but for me He is not something that inspires fear or guilt - on the contrary it inspires pure laughter and happiness. I don't feel weak, meek or humble but strong and confident and very much proud. It feels very calm, peaceful and serene and solemn. God is not someone you go to to solve your problems or when you are in need or when you are feeling 'down' (Ample things and laws have been created for taking care of these). God is someone you simply acknowledge as a Creator and admire Him for the Creation and respect him for that. What do you think or feel when you look at Falling Waters? Not just the beauty of the structure but the thought gone into creating it and that is what you admire, respect and enjoy. You don't feel weak but joyful becaue the first thing that comes to mind is FLW. We 'explain' Falling Waters in terms of FLW. Same with every other Creator and creation incuding existence and its creator.

If you think belief in God or a Creator and being objective is contradictory check your other premises or the definition of God rather than His existence itself.

Now as my need is quenched, there is nothing more to this and I am at peace.

It was nice talking to you. Thank you.

P.S. Don't search for a Creator outside existence or even outside of you - rather look deep inside you and you will find ample proof that He is. You are the proof.

[Vanderlanden]

Okay, I see what the problem is here. A fact is metaphysical, so it's something out there, and it is out there independent of any consciousness. But a fact isn't a random collection of physical stuff (for example, imagine numbering the atoms of the universe, and then selecting a random collection of a billion atoms -- that would not be a "fact"). It doesn't even have to be a tangible object (an event is a fact). A fact is an aspect of reality that you can focus on, i.e. it is something that exists. Would it make things clearer if we just spoke of existents? "Fact" and "existent" really just differ in terms of how you're looking at them. So there is an entity, and that is what's primary. I'm not trying to bury you with terminology, but the problem is that people commonly use the word "fact" to refer to a true proposition (which is therefore an epistemological thing) as well as the aspect of existence being described. We try to control the chaos by using fact to refer to the existent, and not the proposition.We could make this really long, by also dissecting "desk". Stone? On? But yes, some entity-1 has some relation-2 to an entity-3, etc. The identification of the thing as a sphere is a conceptual product, but the thing itself is metaphysical -- it's an entity (which, like all good entities, has an identity).

You say that the stone is being a circle because it exists in this way and that there is no conciousness needed to discover that?

So a fact can also be the realization of a conceptual structure and when we observe the fact we realize its existing properties?

As I recall (sorry, I'll have to review the thread to be sure, and tempus fugit at the moment) the basic issue is whether concepts like "triangle", "sphere" plus the mathematically expressed truisms about them that we have expressed as laws of mathematics are Platonically "out there" in a disembodied form, free of both existence and consciousness. What is physically out there are various existents, and those existents have their various identities.

Well, the very original issue is still why there cannot be nothing, but that's for later. I started off with only accepting identity as unnecessary to explain (that is to find its cause), trying to add "truth" to the realm of axioms, which, as I am now telling you, I believe I had mistaken for just the same thing, identity, since:

It seems clear to me now that the aforementioned concepts like "traingle", "sphere" and their truisms are not somehow "out there", because I have discovered the reason why I was used to think so: I was asking myself, what forces me to make the conclusions about those truisms and seems to be there independent of me and the objects in my consciousness: Identity. What I said was that truth exists, but what I meant was that identity exists. It is the existence of identity that is impossible not to exist, and identity that drives me to make the conclusions about my geometrical objects.

[source]

The only conclusion that I can come to using reason and logic is that there is a Creator who created existence.

Are you familliar with the term "Occam's Razor?" If yes, how is it that through reason and logic you get to the above conclusion? If no, then become familliar with it and reason again.

Everything that exists did not come to be just as a matter of accident or 'chance'.

Why not?

It was created and if it was created there has to be a Creator. It is the doing of a mind - a brilliant one. If I ask you if everything just is, then how did it come to be in the first place, you say there was something which you don't know as yet. Then why not a Creator creating it?

The correct question here is "Why YES a creator creating it?" Why do you need a creator to create everything that exists? Who created the creator? Or did he exist since ever? Well I will argue that existence is infinitely old. It has no beginning, it always just is and it always will be.

This seems to be more logical than saying there was something and somehow it happened but I don't know what.

Having something to say is not necessarily logical, nor is it wise. A wise man knows what he is ignorant about, thus when he speculates he lets it be known that he speculates. Claiming knowledge for something he knows nought about makes him unwise.

You say there is no God. Can you prove or deduce this conclusively? I think not.

The fact that this doesn't make sense does not concern you? How on earth can you deduce something that's not true, unless you are wrong (in which case, case closed)? And how can you ask for proof that something does not exist? Can you prove that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist? You can't? Case closed.

As I said, I am not an expert.

I suppose by this you mean that there is an expert who can prove the existence of god?

As to proof or evidence that a Creator exists - just as when she was asked if John Galt really existed AR answered that the fact that her husband (Frank) exists is proof that John Galt does - the fact that I am (or you are or AR was) is sufficient proof that He is.

Actually, this only adds up to the proof that there's something called procreation. The fact that man is, adds up to proof of evolution. The fact that life is, adds to proof that life begins from inanimate matter. Just remember Occam's razor.

God is someone you simply acknowledge as a Creator and admire Him for the Creation and respect him for that.

Even if there is a creator, why should I admire and respect him for the fact that he created the universe? He's given me no value. I need to get out of my house to get food, I have to earn a living, I even have to pay taxes, when I really shouldn't. It's a real pain thanking and admiring someone for making it possible for me to work day and night to get what I want. Even acknowledging his existence! There are many people on Earth, so if I had to pay respects to every one of them for not standing in my way to happiness, I'd never get anywhere. Besides, the way you describe this creator thing, he's now probably sold his little tinker toy we call the universe and existence, and is enjoying the whatever his equivalent of the Sun is, on a good, long vacation.

Edited March 22, 2006 by source

[DavidOdden]

You say that the stone is being a circle because it exists in this way and that there is no conciousness needed to discover that?

No, I'm saying that the stone exists, and therefore it has an identity, and that identity is not affected by any consciousness. If something about that existent's identity is to be discovered, a consciousness has to do that (that is implicit in the notion of "discovery"). A consciousness is needed to identify the nature of the thing as a circle, rather than as a circulo, Kreis, круг, 圈 or mviringo. Although I don't know of any such established concept, I could also identify it as a kind of "equilat" which includes tetrahedrons, cubes and spheres.

So a fact can also be the realization of a conceptual structure and when we observe the fact we realize its existing properties?

Being careful with wording here, a fact is the thing in reality that we observe whose nature we identify, and abstract as a particular concept. You seem to be using the word "realize" in two ways here, as "be the real-world foundation of" and "grasp".

What I said was that truth exists, but what I meant was that identity exists. It is the existence of identity that is impossible not to exist, and identity that drives me to make the conclusions about my geometrical objects.

Okay, we're on the same page.

[Vanderlanden]

No, I'm saying that the stone exists, and therefore it has an identity, and that identity is not affected by any consciousness. If something about that existent's identity is to be discovered, a consciousness has to do that (that is implicit in the notion of "discovery"). A consciousness is needed to identify the nature of the thing as a circle, rather than as a circulo, Kreis, круг, 圈 or mviringo.

The circular stone exists, OK. But could the contence of this sentence have any meaning at all if it wasn't equivalent to "the stone exists and it has the following property: it fits to my concept of a circle." The property mentioned is a relation. But since the concept of a circle would cease to exist if there was no conciousness, the relation would vanish, too, and so would the property, i.e. the relation the stone has to my concept.

But if that particular stone should be able to maintain its identity independent of consciousness, then it must be said that all those "properties" that are relations of the stone to certain concepts are not defining properties. They are unneccesary for the circular stone to be what it is. This raises the question to me as to whether relations of entities to other entities can or should be considered "properties" at all.

[DavidOdden]

But if that particular stone should be able to maintain its identity independent of consciousness, then it must be said that all those "properties" that are relations of the stone to certain concepts are not defining properties. They are unneccesary for the circular stone to be what it is. This raises the question to me as to whether relations of entities to other entities can or should be considered "properties" at all.

That's a pretty murky area, it seems to me. If we allow any imaginable fact that impinges on the stone to be a "property of the stone", to be part of the stone's identity, then we would have to say that it's a property of having been shoved in my duffle bag, having been on the beach somewhere south of Newcastle, having been used by the venerable Bede to crack a walnut (I made that up, but you never know what great thing a lousy rock did in its past). So generally I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the identity of something as involving whatever relationships it has / had to other existents. But we do want to say that it's here now, which is relational, and it's not moving. Apart from that, I cannot think of any "relationship to other things" facts about the rock that are essential to the rock, or other physical objects.

Also, the idea of "defining property" isn't applicable here. That idea would be relevant to a concept, but not a singular object.

[Hal]

The circular stone exists, OK. But could the contence of this sentence have any meaning at all if it wasn't equivalent to "the stone exists and it has the following property: it fits to my concept of a circle." The property mentioned is a relation. But since the concept of a circle would cease to exist if there was no conciousness, the relation would vanish, too, and so would the property, i.e. the relation the stone has to my concept.

But if that particular stone should be able to maintain its identity independent of consciousness, then it must be said that all those "properties" that are relations of the stone to certain concepts are not defining properties. They are unneccesary for the circular stone to be what it is. This raises the question to me as to whether relations of entities to other entities can or should be considered "properties" at all.

Could you give an example of a non-relational property? (bear in mind that in physics, 'mass' is generally defined as a capacity to affect/be affected by objects in certain ways, 'length' is defined operationally in terms of effects on measuring instruments and varies with the reference frame, and so on)

Edited March 25, 2006 by Hal

[spadeaspade]

I need to get out of my house to get food, I have to earn a living, I even have to pay taxes, when I really shouldn't. It's a real pain thanking and admiring someone for making it possible for me to work day and night to get what I want.

You are so unhappy! I REALLY pity you.

Why not?

You have completely abondoned reason. Also, I have no need to convince anyone that there is a Creator.

[Vanderlanden]

That's a pretty murky area, it seems to me. If we allow any imaginable fact that impinges on the stone to be a "property of the stone", to be part of the stone's identity, then we would have to say that it's a property of having been shoved in my duffle bag, having been on the beach somewhere south of Newcastle, having been used by the venerable Bede to crack a walnut (I made that up, but you never know what great thing a lousy rock did in its past). So generally I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the identity of something as involving whatever relationships it has / had to other existents. But we do want to say that it's here now, which is relational, and it's not moving. Apart from that, I cannot think of any "relationship to other things" facts about the rock that are essential to the rock, or other physical objects.

But isn't saying "the stone is circular" applying a relation of the stone to a circle that exists only in one's consciousness and then calling the "circularity of the stone" one of its properties?

[Vanderlanden]

Meanwhile the problem why there can't be nothing seems solved to me, but the solution raises a new problem. My thinking goes this far:

Suggestion: there should be nothing. "Be" does not go without identity, so "nothing" cannot be. Well, that would be true, but: "nothing" shouldn't be understood as an existent, saying "there is nothing" is not like saying "there is an existent that is called "nothing". Rather "there is nothing" is equivalent to "The state of reality is as follows: Reality contains no existents." But if reality contains no existents, then there IS no reality, is there? That would make the statement "there is nothing", i.e. the statement equivalent to it self-contradictory. So there cannot be nothing, even if you don't look at "nothing" as an existent, but a state of reality.

So far so good. But how then can we talk about "empty amounts" in mathmatics, as in A = {} ? Wouldn't that be an illegal, too? If the amount is empty, then the amount doesn't exist, because an amount IS elements taken together. The power set of the amount shouldn't contain the "empty amount" then, because such a thing is self-contradictory. And yet "empty amounts" seem to be accepted by mathematicians. Don't they see the problem?

Edited April 5, 2006 by Vanderlanden

[DavidOdden]

But how then can we talk about "empty amounts" in mathmatics, as in A = {} ? Wouldn't that be an illegal, too? If the amount is empty, then the amount doesn't exist, because an amount IS elements taken together. The power set of the amount shouldn't contain the "empty amount" then, because such a thing is self-contradictory. And yet "empty amounts" seem to be accepted by mathematicians. Don't they see the problem?

But mathematical constructs aren't necessarily real-world things. Mathematics is basically about methods. There integer-constructing mathod is unbounded so there is no limit to the number of integers that you can cook up, but that doesn't mean that actually exist an infinity of integers somewhere, even as specific integer concepts held in the minds of men (as in "I'm thinking of a number between zero and infinity"). Insane numbers like pi are not "really" infinitely long -- any concrete value of pi has a finite number of digits, and π itself is quite short. Sets aren't the same as "the universe", so an empty set is really more closely analogous to the notion "nothing, right here". There's no philosophical problem with saying that there's nothing between this thing and that thing, which is basically what {} means. The question for mathematics should be "is this method well-defined and consistent?", not "what is the real-world fact that this models". However, if you invent mathematical models that don't have to do with reality, then (obviously) they have nothing to do with reality and you can't use them as a means of gaining knowledge of reality.

[Elysium]

I hate to veer this thread slightly off-topic, but I was presented with a few questions a week ago that questioned the premises of one of the three axioms. I read through this thread, and was unable to find a specific answer related to the specific question that my friend had asked me.

At the time, I had told him about how Objectivism is the one "real" philosophy that one, as a rational thinker, should accept as one's own philosophy (and I suspect that this is where I made the logical error that has led him to question O'ism). He presented the question for me in a mental exercise:

(and I'll summarize what he said)

"So my main question about Objectivism is that it assumes the three axioms are very easily reduceable and acceptable concepts, but I don't think that they are. For example, one of the main axioms, the one that states A is A, implies that you are able to make a clear and accurate definition of what 'A' is. However, you can't really do that for the most part, because, take your own person as an example. You may be able to list off many different attributes and characteristics that describe you, and still be unable to formulate an exact image of what you are, and if you for some reason manage to actually do that in the end, by the time you're done, your personal identity has already changed as it is.

Therefore, if I cannot even define the exact characteristics of something, I can't even have the logical right to conclude that it is itself. If that's the case, then Objectivists are branding things as themselves without a true, concluded, logical reason, and because of this, I think that Objectivism isn't the only one that rational people should follow; it's up to the individual to do so."

With regard to this question, I acknowledged that there is no real way to completely know the entire essence of something, but I argued that that argument does not really matter when one looks at Objectivism, because for all intent and purpose of living on Earth in this reality, all things are define-able enough that we don't need an exact, perfect definition of everything to be able to label something as itself.

I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say on this topic.

He had another question:

"Objectivism is also dead-set on the notion of causality. However, it is almost impossible to exactly pin down what causes what in this world. For example, suppose I pick some flowers from a garden, and the gardener, in coming out and seeing his flowers ruined, gets so angry that he kills the next person he sees. Let's say that person is you. Did I kill you? Did the gardener? Who is at fault here?

Because everything is so interconnected and complex, you cannot conclude that A causes B as easily as Objectivism tends to want to conclude. Furthermore, because you cannot say that A is A so easily, you cannot as easily come up with a direct causality conclusion either."

I answered that a long chain of events does not disprove causality. In fact, it reinforces it; if everything is as interconnected as my friend had said it to be, then it must be the case that those small things all cause each other, and these chain reactions are all hinged on causality in the first place.

Anyway, that about does it. Please let me know what you guys think about these two points of argument.

[Hal]

So far so good. But how then can we talk about "empty amounts" in mathmatics, as in A = {} ? Wouldn't that be an illegal, too? If the amount is empty, then the amount doesn't exist, because an amount IS elements taken together. The power set of the amount shouldn't contain the "empty amount" then, because such a thing is self-contradictory. And yet "empty amounts" seem to be accepted by mathematicians. Don't they see the problem?

I'm not sure what you mean. My fridge comtains an 'empty amount' when there is nothing in it. {} denotes any set which is equinumerous with the set of all objects in my fridge when there arent any in there.

edit: What youve written seems just as much an attack on the number '0' than as it is on the empty set.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Hal