Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

OBJECTIVISM AND THEISM

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

could also be avoided when we posit God as the Uncaused Cause.

Cause and effect can not be applied to existence. Existence is NOT an effect, it is the precursor for causes and effects. Identity is not an effect, but the basis of causality, i.e. cause and effect. The only effects are actions, and actions are caused by entities, by an entity's Identity, or that which it is.

Edited by IAmMetaphysical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you wish to remain rational, you cannot define God from pure fantasy. You need to explain your evidence for ascribing God these traits.

I agree that you cannot resort to pure fantasy because philosophy deals with reality. In contradistiction with the creation, the Creator as the Uncaused Cause has to be infinite since only an infinite power is capable of creating out of nothing.

Why is God all-knowing? Is his brain really big? Has he traveled all around the world and therefore learned many things, like the Wild Boyz?
Because he is infinite.

How is he all-present? Is he like a super-Santa Claus with a reindeer sleigh that goes everywhere in the blink of an eye?

Because he is infinite.

What makes him almighty? Have you seen him eat a star?
Because he is infinite.

Or, maybe you read this nonsense in a book? The Bible maybe?

It is the product of the conceptualization/comprehension/abstraction of my mind from the perception/apprehension of my senses of contingent reality. Well, of course, I want to stay within the realm of philosophy/reason and do not want to discuss the Bible here because that would be in the realm of theology/revelation, which actually provide us with an absolute certainty about the existence and nature of the entity we call God.

Edited by heretic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If existence is the sum of everything that exists, then either God exists and is part of existence, which makes it impossible for him to have created existence (and himself), or God created existence, which means that he cannot exist. Either way you look at it, it's impossible.

If as you say God is the uncaused cause, then that means he doesn't exist by virtue of the fact that he doesn't belong within the sum of everything that exists: existence.

Maarten, this is why I had to use the qualifier "material" and if "material" could be predicated of existence as a whole, then is would be right to say that God is merely a fantasy and does not belong to the realm of reality. I am precisely challenging this position and see where it leads us.

Edited by heretic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How else could you possibly define "existence"?

Everything that exists. But this does not mean that such immaterial realities, such as human nature and human consciousness, should be excluded from the whole of existence. Hence, not everything that exists is material.

Hmm. Would you really want someone to take that at face value? Wouldn't it kinda invalidate anything else you say?

I am not a skeptic, I only want to assume nothing. I want to be educated and I think I could do this by challenging the best position that atheism could put forward. So far the lines are drawn between the eternity of matter that does not need a creator and the contingency of matter that leaves room for a creator. This is in the light of the fact that Objectivism is more akin to empiricism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cause and effect can not be applied to existence. Existence is NOT an effect, it is the precursor for causes and effects.

Existence is the whole that is made up of finite, particular, definite, contingent, material, immaterial, sensible, physical parts, like atoms and stars.

Identity is not an effect, but the basis of causality, i.e. cause and effect.
Identity is what something is. A thing that has the identity of a cat is a cat.

The only effects are actions, and actions are caused by entities, by an entity's Identity, or that which it is.

A baker through his actions bakes a cake. The baker and his actions constitute the cause and the cake is the effect.

Michael, I think we have difrent concepts of things.

Edited by heretic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter whether your God is material or immaterial. It remains a hard fact that it is logically impossible to create something from nothing. With nothing material to work with, your God could not have created the material universe. Your immaterial God could immaterially sit on an immaterial pole and then immaterially spin his ass around and around until immaterial hell immaterially freezes over. That, however, wouldn't change the fact that your God could not have made a material universe because, by your account, there was absolutely no material around to work with.

Creation ex nihilo is impossible. Therefore, your God is impossible and does not exist. He lives only in your mind.

Ok. If you say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me remind you that in responding to a post, we quote the necessary parts, and not the whole post.

Thanks for the reminder David. I am sorry I overlooked this.

This doesn't make any sense. You cannot "discover something new" that would establish the existence of god. The concept of god in incompatible with the axiomatic principles "existence exists" and "existence is identity". All knowledge derives from the validity of those two principles, so you cannot deny them and still claim to ever have knowledge.
The concept of God is incompatible with the axiomatic principles that "Only material existence exists" and "existence is identity, which is only material". All knowledge about the physical world derives validity from these principles.

No, I said that first that when a claim has no support, it should not be considered. And when a claim is disproven, it should also not be considered (and in fact consigned to the category of the false).

Ok.

Read ITOE for a careful treatment of the subject.
Thanks for the advice, David. Yes I read it from the website of Dr. Kelley. The key to Objectivism is its empiricist epistemology.

A logical reduction of a proposition to the axiomatic (the perceptual) by logic.

I was thinking of scientific proof emanating from the scientific method, which is valued in the epistemological paradigm of Ayn Rand.

Are you familiar with the search function on the forum? I recommend using it -- it is very helpful.
Ok. Thanks again.

I explained to you what the expression "stolen concept" refers to. Do you not understand the idea of "assuming a proposition to refute it"?

Yes I know, but I was rather intrigued by the term or concept "stolen."

That's a common Platonic mistake, which has led to all sorts of philosophical messes. In classical theories of truth, correspondence theory is close, but no cigar, since (in non-Objectivist implementations) it sees truth as being a Platonic abstraction where a consciousness is not involved.
This is because Platonism is idealism.

Let's suppose then that quarks are in fact elementary particles; then would then be non-material since they are not composite? That isn't what material means: so let's take "composite" out of there. Then "material" simply means "exists", which means, among other things, "has a specific identity", which then means "is finite".

Perhaps, assuming that they are not composite. But I predicated composition of matter based on what I have observed of things tht exist. I do not have a machine that could chop matter into its basic composition ad infinitum. They key to this philosophy of Ayn Rand is that all that exists is finite matter. Thus, matter = existence, and vise versa. However, what happens to immaterial realities that exist, for example human nature and human consciousness, and the spiritual aspect of man according to Rand? They are not material, but they exist.

Anyhow, I suggest that you do some more basic reading of Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Once you understand the basics, the disposition of the god concept is pretty simple.

Ok. I'll do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maarten, this is why I had to use the qualifier "material" and if "material" could be predicated of existence as a whole, then is would be right to say that God is merely a fantasy and does not belong to the realm of reality. I am precisely challenging this position and see where it leads us.

I am not saying consciousness doesn't exist. However, it either does and falls under existence or it doesn't. There are really no other alternatives. So my argument still stands.

Besides, what does it mean to say that something has identity? It means that it has certain attributes and not others, and that these attributes have a certain magnitude, so to speak. By saying any attribute of God is infinite you are really saying that it doesn't have any actual magnitude; infinity itself is merely a potential and it cannot actually exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying consciousness doesn't exist. However, it either does and falls under existence or it doesn't. There are really no other alternatives. So my argument still stands.

Besides, what does it mean to say that something has identity? It means that it has certain attributes and not others, and that these attributes have a certain magnitude, so to speak. By saying any attribute of God is infinite you are really saying that it doesn't have any actual magnitude; infinity itself is merely a potential and it cannot actually exist.

Magnitude and limitations could be said of material things. If infinity is merely a potential, then things that exist, which constitute what we call "existence" or the universe as a whole, are finite. As such, they had a beginning. This points to their contingency. If so, there was a moment in the past when they did not exist and had to be brought into existence. What caused them to exist? Abiogenesis or self-creation is not possible. Therefore, there must be a cause other/outside/beyond themselves that brought such things into existence. This is what theism comprehends or conceptualizes to be the possibility/probabaility for the existence of the being called God based on what it apprehends or perceives to be the contingency of material reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an invalid question to ask whether or not existence had a beginning. What could have been there before existence? By the very meaning of the concept existence has to be something that has always existed. It certainly could not have been created by anything. And furthermore, there's a difference between something being infinite in a certain quality and it being eternal. Eternal simply means that it has always been there, and will always be there, and because existence is not any particular existents it has always existed as the sum of everything that existed, whether or not the particular existents that fall under this sum change or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magnitude and limitations could be said of material things.
But since all things that exist are material things, this doesn't exempt god from limitation.
If infinity is merely a potential, then things that exist, which constitute what we call "existence" or the universe as a whole, are finite. As such, they had a beginning.
Not in the ordinary use of "beginning". Beginning refers to a difference between one time and a subsequent, so the beginning of a person's life refers to a time such that after that time, the person existed alive and before that, they did not. The concept of "beginning" is not valid for existence as a whole. It's possible that there was a beginning for all particles, for example, if the universe didn't have differentiable particle at one time and did an a later time. It doesn't follow that the universe itself has to have a beginning.
Abiogenesis or self-creation is not possible.
Odd that you don't apply this to god.
Therefore, there must be a cause other/outside/beyond themselves that brought such things into existence.
Why? Why is it necessary that we have to go from a state where nothing exists to a state where stuff exists? Why is the requirement of having been created from something else imposed on material things, and not on immaterial things (like god)?

It is an invalid question to ask whether or not existence had a beginning.
Speedy-fingers Maarten beats me, I see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an invalid question to ask whether or not existence had a beginning. What could have been there before existence? By the very meaning of the concept existence has to be something that has always existed. It certainly could not have been created by anything.

It depends on your perception of reality. For the atheist, in the beginning there was only material existence. For the deist, in the beginning was God. For the idealist, in the beginning were ideas. For the Christian theist, in the beginning was the Word who created the heavens and the earth.

And furthermore, there's a difference between something being infinite in a certain quality and it being eternal. Eternal simply means that it has always been there, and will always be there, and because existence is not any particular existents it has always existed as the sum of everything that existed, whether or not the particular existents that fall under this sum change or not.

I used the general term "infinity" and particular term "eternity" in relation to time or duration, and I used infinity also in relation to space and quality. What has always been there? If you say matter, which I find doubtful, then matter would be eternal. However, I believe that the so-called sum is merely a general term for the collection of the particular parts. The whole exists only in the mind, it is the parts (that with particular identity, as you call it) that exist outside of the mind. Thus, if the things that make up the whole are perceived to be particularly contingent and temporal, then the whole is conceived to be generally contingent and temporal also.

Edited by heretic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since all things that exist are material things, this doesn't exempt god from limitation.

Assuming that all things were material and eternal , which I find doubtful given the contingency and temporality of things in particular. Your existence as a whole that excludes God is a general conceptualization based on your perception of things in particular, which is like my existence as a whole that includes God as a general conceptualization based on my perception of things in particular. The key here is the concept of "contingency". I have predicated this concept of the whole, based on my predication of this concept of the parts. If all that exists are material things, then this god would merely be material. But not everything seems to be material based on the contingency of material reality. Thus, there exists an entity that brought particular things into existence, which entity cannot be material otherwise it would also be in need of a Creator. If things were necessary and not contingent, then there would be no room for a Creator.

Not in the ordinary use of "beginning". Beginning refers to a difference between one time and a subsequent, so the beginning of a person's life refers to a time such that after that time, the person existed alive and before that, they did not. The concept of "beginning" is not valid for existence as a whole. It's possible that there was a beginning for all particles, for example, if the universe didn't have differentiable particle at one time and did an a later time. It doesn't follow that the universe itself has to have a beginning.
The universe is the collective term we give to designate the whole of the collection of its particular parts. There is no such thing as the universe as a whole existing as a concete and particular things, aside from its individual parts existing as concerete and particualr things. The same could be said of the terms "team" and "society." They exist only in the mind, but what exists in reality as concerete and particular things are the things that make up what we call the "team" or "society" as a whole. The same could be said of the Aristotelian essence and form that exist only in particular things and as part of them, although they are real, unlike the Platonic forms that have a world of their own. Unless, of course, you are referring to the eternity of prime matter, which is the "stuff" of particular material things, according to Aristotle.

Odd that you don't apply this to god.

Because God is precisely immaterial and the Creator of material things, which I deduced from the contingency of particular things. What I have said of things that exist in particular, I have applied to the whole of existence in general.

Why? Why is it necessary that we have to go from a state where nothing exists to a state where stuff exists? Why is the requirement of having been created from something else imposed on material things, and not on immaterial things (like god)?

The key to the whole discussion for me is the concept of contingency. If things were not contingent but necessary, then they would always be there and it would be impossible for them not to exist. They would consequently be eternal. They would not be in need of a Creator. However, material/particular things that exist as I perceive them are contingent because they are composites and are therefore susceptible to decomposition and disintegration. They are temporal. They are finite. They are not necessary. Thus, there was moment in the past when they did not exist. Moreover, they could not have existed in the first place or could have existed in another way. This only emphasizes their contingency. Now, where did they come from. The Uncaused Cause is posited as an explanation. If God were created then he would not be God, he would be David or Maarten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on your perception of reality. For the atheist, in the beginning there was only material existence.
Wrong. For the atheist, you cannot generally ascribe a particular belief about the beginning of the world. Atheism is just the lack of belief in God. However, for the scientist, theories like the Big Bang try to explain the beginning of the universe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. For the atheist, you cannot generally ascribe a particular belief about the beginning of the world. Atheism is just the lack of belief in God. However, for the scientist, theories like the Big Bang try to explain the beginning of the universe.

Sorry, Iwas not talking about atheism in general. I was referring to the strong/positive/explicit type of atheism. Scientists have different theories to explain the origin and finity, or eternity and infinity of the universe. One such debate took place between theistic scientist Francis Collins and atheistic scientist Richard Dawkins in Time Magazine (dated January 15, 2007), more specifically on the compatibility of God and science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to say that existence doesn't include only material things. You seem to have trouble grasping this fact. I don't care whether you choose to claim God is an existent or not, but the fact remains that either He is and He couldn't have created Himself and existence, or He is not and HE DOES NOT EXIST.

But this is kind of pointless, I'm done here after this post until something interesting comes up again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your existence as a whole that excludes God is a general conceptualization based on your perception of things in particular,
What in the world do you mean by that? My existence is a fact, not a conceptualization, and my existence isn't based on perception at all. Since that premise is false, of course your conclusion that god exists because you think you perceive him is also invalid. Hopefully, we won't need to review that point again.
If all that exists are material things, then this god would merely be material. But not everything seems to be material based on the contingency of material reality.
And yet you have yet to show a single example of a non-material existent. Your earlier attempt to connect materiality to being composite is in error, since that isn't what material means. God doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter whether he's material or non-material. If you can prove that there is some special property that derives from being "non-material", maybe your proof for god can procede, but until then, you're stuck with the conclusion that god, were he to exist, would be material, and thus a contradictory concept.
If things were necessary and not contingent, then there would be no room for a Creator.
Excellent. All things are necessary, and the necessary / contingent distinction is invalid, so there is as you say no room for a creator.

Now, then, I have a friendly suggestion for you. We have a special sub-forum for debating against Objectivism, the Debate Forums. I think at this point you now have a good enough basis in Objectivism that you could propose a concrete debate on the existence of god there. I look forward to your proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet you have yet to show a single example of a non-material existent. Your earlier attempt to connect materiality to being composite is in error, since that isn't what material means. God doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter whether he's material or non-material. If you can prove that there is some special property that derives from being "non-material", maybe your proof for god can procede, but until then, you're stuck with the conclusion that god, were he to exist, would be material, and thus a contradictory concept.Excellent. All things are necessary, and the necessary / contingent distinction is invalid, so there is as you say no room for a creator.

But isn't there a division between material (or physical) existents and mental existents that can be made? If I recall correctly Rand talks about that in ItOE, that physical existence is only a certain subset of existence. I'm not sure if you could call a thought a material existent, I'd say a mental existent is a much better term for these existents. Not that that makes them any less real, of course. My current understanding is that material existent and physical existent mean the exact same thing, but perhaps this is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't there a division between material (or physical) existents and mental existents that can be made?
I'm not certain how Heretic is using "material", so I'm using a broader understanding of the term, namely "an existent which is a physical form, or derives from some physical form". Any mental concrete has a its physical form (for instance your idea of "cow"), though what makes mental existents particularly interesting is that you can't integrate them at the physical level, that is, the concept "cow" doesn't have an extractable physical form for all consciousnesses. A mental existent can affect the universe only via the "physical" interface. Now if Heretic is arguing that god is simply an idea, that's what we have known to be the case with god all along. An idea cannot exist without a physical basis (thus cannot "create" anything except by an existing physical being acting on an existent), which is why I don't think s/he means "material" in that way. Were god immaterial in that way, i.e. a figment of individual imaginations, then god would be even more limited than the ghost in the sky version.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world do you mean by that? My existence is a fact, not a conceptualization, and my existence isn't based on perception at all. Since that premise is false, of course your conclusion that god exists because you think you perceive him is also invalid. Hopefully, we won't need to review that point again.

I'm sorry David for confusing you with my compound sentences. I was actually making a distinction between:

Existence as a whole or the universe - conceived by the mind, like the terms "team" and "society", and does not exist as a thing separate from its parts or as a particular object with its own identity separate from its parts.

Existing things in particular (that make up the whole) - apprehended by the senses, like cars and stars, which exist separately each with their own particular identities.

Of course, both are undeniable facts and are real. However, the whole is the product of the conceptualization of the mind, while its parts are those that we apprehend with our senses.

Human nature and human consciousness are realities and are facts. They exist in reality. There would be no human being/person without them. However, you cannot see them the way you see or could see cars or stars. They cannot be perceived by the senses, but they can be conceived by the mind. Moreover, they do not exist independent of the human beings in which they exist. They cannot exist without the human being. They exist within the human being. They are like the essence or form of Aristotle that is conceived by the mind and that exists in particular things.

Hence, there are realities that are perceived by the senses (we can see them with our eyes) and there are those that are conceived by the mind (we can "see" them with our mind).

It is therefore correct to say that not everything that exists in reality are material things.

And yet you have yet to show a single example of a non-material existent. Your earlier attempt to connect materiality to being composite is in error, since that isn't what material means. God doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter whether he's material or non-material. If you can prove that there is some special property that derives from being "non-material", maybe your proof for god can procede, but until then, you're stuck with the conclusion that god, were he to exist, would be material, and thus a contradictory concept.
When I said material, I referred to an existent that is palpable, physical, composite; that which I see or can see, feel, touch, taste, etc; that which is made up of parts, for example, compounds, elements, molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, etc.

The non-material existent would be human consciousness, soul, mind, nature, essence, form etc.

In the theistic equation, God would be a non-material existent. On the other hand, of course, God would not be a part of the Objectivist framework.

Excellent. All things are necessary, and the necessary/contingent distinction is invalid, so there is as you say no room for a creator.

A thing is necessary if it is impossible for it not to exist. Thus, it must exist. It would always be there. God is proposed by theists to be the only necessary being.

A thing is contingent if it is possible for it not to exist. Thus, it may or may not have existed. It was not always there. This is possible on account of the fact that things are composite and suceptible to decomposition. Hence, they have a beginning and ending. Thus, there was a moment in the past when they did not exist, or it is possible that they could have existed in another way, and there would be a time in the future when they would cease to exist. It is possible that we could not have existed or we could have not been born. There would be a time when we will cease to exist. We are not necessary beings. Contingency is a fact. We cannot merely explain this away by gratuitously dismissing it as meaningless the way the logical positivists did.

In my apprehension and comprehension of material reality, I have yet to see any existing physical object/material reality/thing that is not contingent.

Now, then, I have a friendly suggestion for you. We have a special sub-forum for debating against Objectivism, the Debate Forums. I think at this point you now have a good enough basis in Objectivism that you could propose a concrete debate on the existence of god there. I look forward to your proposal.

Thanks David, I will find out how I could join that forum. After all, those who say that God exists has the burden of proof. For my part, I have been arguing for the existence of God from the contingency of material reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any mental concrete has a its physical form (for instance your idea of "cow"), though what makes mental existents particularly interesting is that you can't integrate them at the physical level, that is, the concept "cow" doesn't have an extractable physical form for all consciousnesses. A mental existent can affect the universe only via the "physical" interface.
What do you mean when you say that any mental concrete has a (its?) physical form? Do you mean that an idea of "cow" corresponds to the physical firing of neurons in a specific way in the brain? Or do you mean that an idea of "cow" corresponds to an actual physical cow that exists?

But unless your arguing from materialism, the question of whether mental existents must have physical counterparts would seem to be scientific rather than philosophical, since I don't see how you could derive it axiomatically, in the way that you can derive that both mental existents and physical existents exist (and are not the same thing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean when you say that any mental concrete has a (its?) physical form? Do you mean that an idea of "cow" corresponds to the physical firing of neurons in a specific way in the brain?
No, I mean that any specific "thinking" of cow by me (for example) corresponds to some pattern of physical firings of neurons. Also, that my concept of "cow" corresponds to some electro-chemical state in my brain, and I would not even go so far as to say that it's the same at all times in my adult life. I would say that it probably has changed since I was 20. I am skeptical that there is a uniform physical concept "cow" in the brains of all English speakers.

The closest analog is the physical CPU / program distinction, though it's still different. The notion of a loop, when it "is happening", corresponds to some EM pattern, but which EM pattern is highly variable, and totally uninformative as to the nature of loops (differing in small ways from P4 chip to P4 chip, more from AMD to P4, and vastly from 360 to P4).

But unless your arguing from materialism, the question of whether mental existents must have physical counterparts would seem to be scientific rather than philosophical, since I don't see how you could derive it axiomatically, in the way that you can derive that both mental existents and physical existents exist (and are not the same thing).
I haven't thought about trying to derive it axiomatically. The notion of a mental existent lacking a physical basis (correspondent / cause) is arbitrary, so I have not given more than about a second's worth of thought to the issue (mostly, just to understand what the concept says and to realize that it is arbitrary). Every known mental existent does have a physical correspondent, but I think that the conclusion that all mental existents must have a physical correspondent is derived scientifically, from what causes mental existents. I think if I were to try to derive it axiomatically, I'd approach it from the perspective of what "cause" implies (since one mental existent can cause another mental existent).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do Objectivists. But when something can be neither proven nor disproven, it enters the realm of the arbitrary, and is therefore dismissed out of hand.

Well, it enters the realm of probablity, or so claims Richard Dawkins. He does not think that when something can't be proven or disproven it is on even footing, but that the "odds in favour of the teapot (spaghetti monster/Esmeralda and Keith/unicorn etc.) are not equal to the odds against it." (italics mine) That's from p. 53 in his "The God Delusion" book. On the next page, page 54: "What matters is not whether or not God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some disprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can be neither proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent. On the contrary, as we shall see."(italics his)

Dawkins should not have tried to put his own flavor into Russells Teapot. I threw my cup down, and walked out of the book. No more tea time with him. I'd rather be reading, in my opinion, a far superior book anyways..."The Case Against God" by George Smith.

Edited by intellectualammo
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...