Softwarenerd, I think this is pretty clear. What do you think?
Sure, and I agree with it completely.
This can lead to two conclusions:
(1) God does not exist.
(2) God exists, but did not create existence.
Is the second a possibility or am I misinterpreting Objectivist metaphysics?
Would you agree that I am god? If not, why not? I do exist, and I didn’t create existence. So how else do we identify god? You might eventually come to the position that god is a very tall grey-haired 10,000 year old hominid living on the planet Kolob, with a warp-drive engine in his car. The question about god’s existence can be answered in two ways. Under the usual version of god, the answeris “No, he cannot, because he is a logical contradiction”. But if you retreat to a weaker version of god, then the answer is “You have shown no evidence for his existence, so I can’t consider your evidence”. Reasonable men do not entertain baseless conjectures, but if you provide your proof that god exists, like bring him here so that we can see him, then we’d have something to contemplate.
The reason is that everything in reality is interconnected. In logic, therefore, to sustain an evasion on any single point, one would be forced gradually to expand and to keep expanding the scope of one’s blindness. For example, suppose that you decide to evade only in regard to the issue of God’s existence, which you want to accept without evidence; in regard to everything else, you say, you will follow reason. What, in pattern, will happen to your mental processes thereafter? Can you remain rational in dealing with the rest of metaphysics, including such topics as the eternity of the universe, the absolutism of Identity, and the impossibility of miracles? Any of these topics, squarely faced, threatens to expose and upset your evasion. What about your thinking in regard to epistemology, including your view of the arbitrary and the issue of faith versus reason? What about ethics and God’s supposed moral commandments? What about God’s reputed political <opar_225> views—e.g., on pornography, prayer in the schools, abortion? What about the clash between Genesis and the theory of evolution? If you tried consistently to protect only your single starting evasion, turning aside methodically from everything that might threaten it, directly or indirectly, that single evasion would lead you step by step to one ultimate result: total nonperception.
and none can be evaded without tearing apart and destroying that kind of whole.
It looks to me, in reading this, that Dr. Piekoff conflates the mere belief in God with the belief that the Bible is the inerrant truth. (“God” doesn’t necessarily mean the Judaeo-Christian Yahweh jealous dude, nor does it necessarily imply that you think he wrote the bible as we know it today.) Not a big deal actually, because in a population like ours where the overwhelming majority of people are Christians of one stripe or another, most people hold the two propositions as being identical without a second thought.
However, once that is resolved (by changing “God’s existence” to “inerrancy of the Bible”) the example is a perfect illustration of the ripple effect from evading in one place while not doing so in others–then following the “logical” consequences. This was, of course his main intent in this paragraph.
Anyone have any thoughts or an example of the problems posed by being rational *except* for a belief in a deist God–i.e., one who doesn’t give a damn what we do?
I would say the motives are completely scrutable, because it would be manifested in existence if a God does exist.
This is where things get dicey.
To understand why, first understand that to use reason does not mean simply to apply deduction to already-known premises. More important, is the process of observing the world and drawing inferences and premises out of those observations. When one assumes a God, one assumes a non-observational explanation.
Take the example of ancient people assuming the existence of a God of Thunder. Being unable to explain the cause of thunder, they instead explained it away, by assuming a Thunder God. What does this do to their understanding of thunder? They start to see their God manifest itself in the existence of thunder: they actually indirectly “observe” that he is angry or happy and so on. In fact, a Thunder God is not manifest in thunder; to assume so is to beg the question. Practically, to assume so is to delay learning the truth about thunder.
Having found reasons for thunder and rain and the seasons, modern man has pretty much done away with God-based explanations for these. For most, God now exists as an explanation for the ethical questions of life. However, to see God’s will as manifest in some particular ethical theory is to beg the question; it is to ascribe one’s own arbitrary explanation to God. Any attempt to reason that God must have meant us to act a certain way, is based on an arbitrary assumption about the existence and nature of God. So, it is just as arbitrary as the idea that the thunder God is angry when he thunders… for all we know, thunder could be his way of laughing, or of taking a leak… or, it could just be a natural phenomenon.
So, step back and think of reason as being “observation and reasoning based on observation”. Then, you’ll see why one cannot smuggle in something non-observation based into the mix. If one does so, then one can either do it in a way that renders it meaningless (as previously posted), or one can do it in a way that conflicts with observation-based reasoning.
Anyone have any thoughts or an example of the problems posed by being rational *except* for a belief in a deist God–i.e., one who doesn’t give a damn what we do?
Assuming the person is rational, or actually a given in the above, then that is an example of a breach of integrity, of consistency, to believe in a God and evasion on their part, since we already know that they are rational as such.
[…] integrity is a derivative of rationality and precludes any form of emotionalism. It does not mean loyalty to arbitrary notions, however strongly one feels they are true. [like the belief in a God] Integrity means loyalty not to a whim or delusion, but to one’s knowledge, to the conclusions one can prove logically. Like every other virtue, therefore, integrity presupposes a mind that seeks knowledge, a mind that accepts and follows reason.
Sure, and I agree with it completely.
So, then, to be perfectly clear: does that mean that you retract your previous statement?
Anyone have any thoughts or an example of the problems posed by being rational *except* for a belief in a deist God–i.e., one who doesn’t give a damn what we do?
That doesn’t change anything of substance about Dr. Peikoff’s example, it just makes the effect more subtle - but no less inevitable. All facts are interconnected. You can’t say that the existence of a Creator - even a passive one - can have completely zero implications about reality. Sooner or later, one must either start thinking and/or acting on those implications, or blanking out. As just a small example, a Creator implies Creation - which implies that there existed something before existence. Which is a logical pretzel of contradictions, since “existence” is all that which ever existed, including this Creator and whatever medium he existed in before “creating existence.” Furthermore, if the universe was created by a consciousness, then there would be fruit in trying to discern the intent of such a being - since this intent would be useful to know in understanding the universe. And since there is no such being, attempts to find His intent are in fact fruitless, and a waste of one’s time and energy.
That doesn’t change anything of substance about Dr. Peikoff’s example, it just makes the effect more subtle - but no less inevitable. All facts are interconnected. You can’t say that the existence of a Creator - even a passive one - can have completely zero implications about reality. Sooner or later, one must either start thinking and/or acting on those implications, or blanking out. As just a small example, a Creator implies Creation - which implies that there existed something before existence. Which is a logical pretzel of contradictions, since “existence” is all that which ever existed, including this Creator and whatever medium he existed in before “creating existence.” Furthermore, if the universe was created by a consciousness, then there would be fruit in trying to discern the intent of such a being - since this intent would be useful to know in understanding the universe. And since there is no such being, attempts to find His intent are in fact fruitless, and a waste of one’s time and energy.
All true.
I do think that I’d rather deal with a bunch of deists than a bunch of believers in Yahweh. At least the deists don’t pull ethical conclusions out of their ass a really old book. They will tend to look at the universe as it is. I wonder if Objectivist ethics could ever make sense to them?
Thanks guys, you’ve been good sports. I have one more question though: Could God be existence?
Here is something I wrote up last night (I think better when I get my thoughts down on paper):
"If God exists (or once did exist), then it logically follows that God could not have created existence. Nothing can exist without there being a condition of existence before it.
This can lead only to two meaningful possibilities:
• God does not exist, or
• God is existence
While the first possibility is pretty straightforward, the second one might seem a little strange at first.
If you believe in God, then you more likely than not believe that God has existed forever; it’d be pretty depressing to believe in a dead God.
God could only have existed forever under one circumstance. Since something can’t exist in nothing, a period of existence (however short) without that something would have unavoidably come before it. Therefore, only existence can exist forever. God would have to be existence.
This would mean that “God” has a definition within man’s perception. God would also be a natural rather than a supernatural entity.
“What is existence?” The wording of this question is interesting, since is indicates to be or exist. The question recognizes such a concept in itself.
“What is non-existence?” There can be no such thing. Non-existence can not exist and could never have existed.
Thus, existence can be conceptually defined as that which has no poles."
The second is definately not a possibility in Objectivist metaphysics. The attributes of God alone, like “omnipotence”, “infinite”, “omniscience”…are all blantantly false metaphysical premises. Entities cannot have such attributes in our universe. Stick with the first conclusion.
Any way that you try to put it, if you say God exists, the burden of proof lies with you. Onus of proof principle. If you “believe in a God” but know nothing about it other than just “believing”, that is not rational and you are not using reason.
Does existence itself have these metaphysical premises? Can existence be considered an entity, or is it something else?
Nothing can exist without there being a condition of existence before it.
That’s not so: no effect can exist without a cause before it. Or, any cause must precede its effect. The notion of “before” is sensible only when there are already things that exist. So then
• God does not exist, or
• God is existence
That is, god is just another name for the universe. But the universe cannot create the universe (when X creates Y, X must exist and Y not exist at some time, and at a subsequent time Y is caused to exist by the actions of X). If Y is everything that exists, and X is everything that exists, X cannot exist when Y does not exist.
Therefore, only existence can exist forever.
But there is no such thing as “pure existence” – existing is all actual things. You cannot have existence without some thing that exists.
Thanks guys, you’ve been good sports.
I’d have to direct that at you as well. You’ve been dealing and understanding all of this very well, for someone who is new to Objectivist metaphysics. Your efforts, your interests, your pursuit of the truth in this is commendable, applaudable IMO. 
Does existence itself have these metaphysical premises? Can existence be considered an entity, or is it something else?
Existence as such is definately not an enity - because - existence:
does not tell us anything about the nature of existents [entities]; it merely underscores the fact that they exist.
If you want to equate/associate God with existence/reality/universe, you can’t, though people have tried to like pantheists/panentheists, and we are still waiting for the evidence… when one presents a positive claim, they bear the burden of proof. Until they do… I have every reason to be an atheist and no evidence no reason to think that there is such a thing, whether this God be a “super-natural” one, or in the universe itself, or existing in our universe.
You are adament in trying to find a “place” for God… 
Some critics argue that pantheism is little more than a redefinition of the word “God” to mean “existence”, “life” or “reality”.
I think this is what you are essentially doing, redefining in that sense, since you have tried several other ways to accommodate God in our universe or “outside” the universe. Existence exists. God does not exist. I view this as being an attempt at “resurrecting” God by trying to redefine.
Existence exists. God does not exist. I view this as being an attempt at “resurrecting” God by trying to redefine.
This is a persistent problem in philosophy, that people imagine an entity or concept with certain properties, give it a name, then try to learn more about the thing. When cracks emerge in the support for the thing, rather than question the thing, people love to redefine the thing. Thus what is constant is the name, and not its attributes (although even the name isn’t the same – Yaweh, God, Allah are from what I can see the same description). Most people would consider dios, dieu, Gott, bog, theos to refer to the same thing, so clearly the name isn’t the constant – it has to be the defiition. What is the definition? If you start redefining the thing, you’re not talking about the same thing anymore.
If you start redefining the thing, you’re not talking about the same thing anymore.
Correct…the defintions of say “good” and “evil” are redefined or rather defined inside the contexts of various philosophic systems, as well as “God”. That’s why it’s essential to find out what their definition is of it, what they mean by it when they say “God” or that something is “good”…
What I think [what Julian] was doing before was redefining by searching and using various defintions that are out there for God, and after they didn’t work metaphysically, abandoned them, and was trying to find (or make up) any other defintion of God that [he or she] could in order to attempt to “rescue” “God” from “its” present state of not existing et al. I was trying to identify that as well.
I have one more question though: Could God be existence?
In other words, if you changed the understanding of “God” to one which was not self-contradictory on its face? The main issue is that this is still a claim that doesn’t have evidence to back it up. It would be like claiming there is a colony of invisible gremlins on the far side of Pluto. You could invent thousands of such fantastic ideas, but all of them would still be pure make-believe.
Note also, it still wouldn’t change the substance of the example I cited - it would only make it yet more subtle. You’d still be reversing the process of knowledge: instead of looking at the facts for evidence, you’d have a fact that you arrived at without evidence which would eventually come into conflict with your observations of reality. Believers in this “God-as-existence” would still try to draw inferences from the idea.
This is a persistent problem in philosophy, that people imagine an entity or concept with certain properties, give it a name, then try to learn more about the thing. When cracks emerge in the support for the thing, rather than question the thing, people love to redefine the thing. Thus what is constant is the name, and not its attributes (although even the name isn’t the same – Yaweh, God, Allah are from what I can see the same description). Most people would consider dios, dieu, Gott, bog, theos to refer to the same thing, so clearly the name isn’t the constant – it has to be the defiition. What is the definition? If you start redefining the thing, you’re not talking about the same thing anymore.
That is the most concise way I have ever heard it explained before - I deal with this on a constant basis on my blog! Hell, I made a post yesterday about ‘Unconditional Love’, what it was, and why it was impossible (and why it isn’t a virtue, let alone one that one should seek) - the guy’s response was, “Yeah, but that’s the point of unconditional love, that God can do it, but humans can” - but then it isn’t ‘unconditional love’ as I’d just described it in the post, he was talking about some mystical force instead.
Anyway, I’m enjoying reading this thread, and I too would like to congratulate Julian for his intellectual courage and honesty.
That’s not so: no effect can exist without a cause before it. Or, any cause must precede its effect. The notion of “before” is sensible only when there are already things that exist. So thenThat is, god is just another name for the universe. But the universe cannot create the universe (when X creates Y, X must exist and Y not exist at some time, and at a subsequent time Y is caused to exist by the actions of X). If Y is everything that exists, and X is everything that exists, X cannot exist when Y does not exist.But there is no such thing as “pure existence” – existing is all actual things. You cannot have existence without some thing that exists.
My thinking on this was that nothing could exist in an existential vacuum. In other words, the axiom of existence must be true for something to exist.
Is it impossible to separate existence from the existents?
Although I’m not so sure myself, my thinking is that while an entity eventually goes out of existence, existence for other entities continues on. Wouldn’t this mean that it is possible to separate them?
Like I’ll go out of existence one day and so will everyone else, but even when humans no longer exist, there will still be existence.
Is it impossible to separate existence from the existents?
Yes it is impossible, outside of one’s mind. One can hold it abstractly in one’s mind, as a concept, just as one can hold the color blue, without knowing blue … what? However, blue cannot exist without apart from a blue …something.
This is a persistent problem in philosophy, that people imagine an entity or concept with certain properties, give it a name, then try to learn more about the thing. When cracks emerge in the support for the thing, rather than question the thing, people love to redefine the thing. Thus what is constant is the name, and not its attributes (although even the name isn’t the same – Yaweh, God, Allah are from what I can see the same description). Most people would consider dios, dieu, Gott, bog, theos to refer to the same thing, so clearly the name isn’t the constant – it has to be the defiition. What is the definition? If you start redefining the thing, you’re not talking about the same thing anymore.
As I realized that the other definitions were impossibilities, I wanted to see if there were any other possible definitions. I’m not trying to be deceptive. It was redefining, but my motive was the process of elimination.
My definition of God is “the Sustainer of everything.” The Qur’an claims that God created and sustains man, while in contrast, only claims to sustain the universe (maybe just creating existents, such as the moon and stars). I was wondering if existence itself could be a sustainer.
Yes it is impossible, outside of one’s mind. One can hold it abstractly in one’s mind, as a concept, just as one can hold the color blue, without knowing blue … what? However, blue cannot exist without apart from a blue …something.
I think I get what you’re saying. Existence can’t stand on its own because it is a property of something and thus requires that something. I guess I’m just confused on how things come into existence and what exactly they are coming into existence to, if existence isn’t a standalone thing.
Say that I am just born. I now exist. What do I exist in though?
In other words, the axiom of existence must be true for something to exist.
Which is why it is the fundamental axiom. And yet, some people attempt to cast doubt on it.
Is it impossible to separate existence from the existents?
Well, “existence” refers to two things. First, there is the nominalization of “exist” meanng “fact that ___ exists”, for example “The existence of mammals on the moon would be a problem for Jones’ theory”. And then there is the sense that we are using it, meaning “the broad fact of existing, without restriction”. Not just existence of this thing, or existence of that thing, but all aspects of existing. An “existent” is one thing (non-technically) that exists, such as an entity or a relationship. So you can consider one existent separate from all other existents. In that sense, an existent is separable (mentally distinguishable) from existence. You can not only consider Cow #349 separately from all other cows or existents, you can actually eliminate Cow #349 from the set of all existents (thus, existence). If we set aside the question of considering an existent separate from other existents, an existent cannot “be separate from existence” (just to make sure there’s no confusion there). A former existent can cease to exist, in which case it will not be, at all.
The point is that existence exists as long as something exists. It is possible that all that existed back a bazillion years ago was one existent, The Blob, which gave rise to other distinct existents (don’t ask me how, I skipped that class).