“the only difference between round and square is the color” This is equivilent to the above.
how so? prove this without simply stating it as truth. I am only talking about practicality, the only diffenece between a blue nail and a red nail for building a wall that will not be seen is irrelevant. provided that the nails are the same in all else
to quote some person I cannot remember, “a difference that makes no difference is no difference”
my arguments, are honestly partly inspired by the Christians who denounced deists as atheists.
to quote some person I cannot remember, “a difference that makes no difference is no difference”
Oh great, an equivocation.
no need to be nasty.
Equivocation does not prove anything true, but do not commit the fallacy fallacy
here is another metaphor: is tree that has been pissed a few months ago on any different to the carpenter than one that is identical but has not been pissed on?
What units do you measure God in - Joules? Ergs? Calories?
1.21 GIGAWATTS!
1.21 GIGAWATTS!
I still stand by ohms
Great job. Best troll thread in a while.
So, jake… can you provide, a rational argument as to why exactly objectivism is incompatible with my definition of deism?
So, jake… can you provide, a rational argument as to why exactly objectivism is incompatible with my definition of deism?
Sure.
I would love to hear (or rather read) it, I understand that I very well may be wrong and I actually want to be proven wrong as I am playing the “devil’s advocate” in this thread
padron he figure of speach
So, jake… can you provide, a rational argument as to why exactly objectivism is incompatible with my definition of deism?
Can you provide a explanation of what Rands theory of definition is? If not you have your first reason why you couldn’t even evaluate the title of your own thread properly.
By the way I realize you where trying to say “an irrelevent difference” earlier, but due to a lack of correct epistemlogy you were having difficulty.
as a side note, Jake are you a ARI or COS objectivist?
yes, Rand said that a word is a way to describe a concept according to her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
the above is a paraphrasing of course
my best definition would be a sentient being of any composition that influenced or shaped the universe for either as specific end or as a means to a specific end, which is not known to myself
Sentience implies a consciousness, which implies a brain, which implies physical matter, which implies existence (of the universe). So, a “non-physical sentient being” is a contradiction. [Also see my next post below]
… does objectivism necessitate atheism, or does it only require a lack of faith (assuming that Deism lacks faith and Atheism does not require it)
With consideration of the totality of knowledge available to human kind, yes, Objectivism necessitates atheism. Objectively. Properly understood as, “without God,” there is no logical, rational, scientific or any other foundational premise to assert the existence of “God”. If there were, don’t you think these demonstrable points would be the subject of this debate by now?
It seems that some people get hung up on whether or not an Objectivist could consider himself an agnostic. As most people commonly understand that word, it makes sense why they might think that could be a legitimate Objectivist stance. They say, “If you admit that we don’t know something, then you cannot discount it.” That seems logical to many, but it is not logic. It is definitely not Objectivist logic. Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism does not consider the arbitrary.
An agnostic is someone who wants to evade the question all together. If they don’t “feel” like logic or reason provides them with a satisfactory answer, they choose to “feel” comfortable by claiming ignorance. Objectivism rejects all ignorance… but especially intentional ignorance.
She doesn’t consider the arbitrary because she properly defines and understands the meaning of arbitrary. For the same reason you don’t seriously consider the implications and possibility that “The Creator” is an alien scientist named Artie who created our existence in a petri dish, she didn’t spend time pondering whether or not Artie’s birth certificate actually proves his real name is Godfrey.
(When we all see a gigantic metal tweezer grab the moon and move it out of earth’s orbit, we will then have some more to discuss.)
Notions of God the Creator Being - which are common among deists - are contradictory on multiple grounds:
“A consciousness conscious only of itself, existing in non-existence, acts in non-time, to create existence, time, and objects of which to be aware.”
There are at least four contradictions here, all related: consciousness requires objects of which to be conscious, existence implies existence, action implies motion through time, and creation requires all of those: existence, action over time, and physical objects to manipulate.
my best definition would be a sentient being of any composition that influenced or shaped the universe for either as specific end or as a means to a specific end, which is not known to myself
If (more precisely, “when”) you deduce through logic that there is exactly ZERO evidence for the existence of a specific “God” defined as such, will you propose an alternate definition and repeat the process?
P.S. Artie (our alien scientist) qualifies perfectly into your definition above.
Notions of God the Creator Being - which are common among deists - are contradictory on multiple grounds:
“A consciousness conscious only of itself, existing in non-existence, acts in non-time, to create existence, time, and objects of which to be aware.”
There are at least four contradictions here, all related: consciousness requires objects of which to be conscious, existence implies existence, action implies motion through time, and creation requires all of those: existence, action over time, and physical objects to manipulate.
Not all deists believe this to be true, you are over generalizing, the deism I refer to does not make any of those assumptions
also, sentience does not necessarily require a physical brain because all matter is made of vibrations set at specific frequencies (learned this on Nova), how do you know that an energy being vibrating at a specific frequency is not sentient (cannot perceive)