According to Peikoff all error is evil and can not ever be forgiven.
Hogwash!
According to Peikoff all error is evil and can not ever be forgiven.
Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
According to Peikoff all error is evil and can not ever be forgiven.
For your reading pleasure, here is a brief quote from Peikoff’s “Fact and Value”
Now we must note that falsehood does not necessarily imply vice; honest errors of knowledge are possible.
If you’re interested is the rest of what Peikoff actually said, look here:
The only advice one can give is to go to the source. Read Ayn Rand and consider her ideas as best you can.
I have.
“Supernatural” is defined as:
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Typically people use the word “metaphysical” to denote things “beyond our understanding of nature” but this is a total corruption of the term. Some religions do indeed hold that god is beyond our understanding but for Western religions God is supernatural as in definition 2. and 3. above (i.e., omnipotent and omniscient).
So…a being that has power to go beyond nature. Okay. Where does the “must be outside of reality” fit in.
So…a being that has power to go beyond nature. Okay. Where does the “must be outside of reality” fit in.
i find this to be a better definition, although the others are correct. This is just more precise: " not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material" The natural realm is reality. And everything in reality is subject to explanation to natural laws. Every being is defined by physical and material characteristics. Thats where the supernatural is found outside of reality. Because it lacks identity and definition. All that which is inside of reality is bound by the law of identity, and can therefore be defined.
Where I think you differ from Theists is that you claim something must be outside of reality to control nature. Look at it from the point of view of a cartoonist. A cartoonist can control everything, including physical laws, in his cartoon. He exists outside of the cartoon but he still exists. This is the way Theists look at God. He exists outside what we know of reality but not outside of reality as a whole. My stance on God is simply that I haven’t been given a reason to believe in him, so I renounced my faith. But I will never say that I am “certain” that there is no God.
Where I think you differ from Theists is that you claim something must be outside of reality to control nature. Look at it from the point of view of a cartoonist. A cartoonist can control everything, including physical laws, in his cartoon. He exists outside of the cartoon but he still exists. This is the way Theists look at God. He exists outside what we know of reality but not outside of reality as a whole. My stance on God is simply that I haven’t been given a reason to believe in him, so I renounced my faith. But I will never say that I am “certain” that there is no God.
No, he cannot reamain inside of reality and control all of it. So, you argue omnipotence is possible in reality? how? Someone told me this argument and I find it very helpful. If god has no limit to his power…can god have the power to limit his power? If he does…is he still omnipotent?
You are arguing a moot point. If god is not defined and with evidence to support its existence, then there is no reason to even consider the possibility of a god. Can you define god? If not then there is no reason to even argue your point. Until evidence is provided it is merely the creation of one’s imagination. It is the equivalent of me saying: “jakjdo iajfi mkczjpoiz jk exists.” If i dont define it and i dont provide evidence, how the He11 do you even know what I saying exists? Can you refute that it exists? Probably not, because i havent specifically said what it is that I am talking about. So, without defintion there can be no argument for exists, and when there is no argument for its existence, then there is no NEED to argue against its existence. There is point and should be dismissed without any further discussion. Yet these type of debates happen all of the time. Kinda weird eh?
But I will never say that I am “certain” that there is no God.
Of course, because you are a dogmatic skeptic. I bet I could name any imaginary being, and you would not, with certainty, deny its existence. Let’s try!
Do you deny the existence of:
-
Zeus
-
Virgin Mary
-
Ghosts
-
Zombies
-
Santa Claus
-
Easter Bunny
-
Harry Potter
Well? Do they exist or not? If you say ‘no’, then I’m going to say: “Well, you see, there is this ‘super-reality’ where they actually do exist. Prove I’m wrong!”
Can you define god? If not then there is no reason to even argue your point …
Nimble:
Don’t you see that this person is not interested in defining God? It is essential to his argument for skepticism that he not define God too precisely. If he were to do so, then that would clearly invalidate his crusade against certainty.
This guy sounds exactly like a couple others on different threads. It is getting annoying, because they obviously have no respect for logic.
A fact doesn’t need to be disproven if it is not supported by reality. If it is arbitrary, it can be rejected on that basis. Edison didn’t just going around arbitrarilly stating “electric-light could be possible - prove that it isn’t”. He went and substantiated his theory, by discovering the electric-light bulb. You need to do the same for any hypothesis of your own before you go throwing it around.
There is only a certain amount of things in the universe - reality has limits. By contrast, as a potential, the things that one could arbitrarilly come up with that are not real, are infinite. Therefore, the chance of a completely arbitrary concept being true are less likely than being untrue.
This is important to note, because you can keep coming up with concepts forever that have nothing to do with reality, and say “well, you can’t be certain it isn’t true”. This is not a proper standard for certainty. Certainty is when you can be sure that something is true based on the facts you are conscious of. This is also true of the reverse - when there is an absolute lack of facts that pertain to an idea, it is valid to be absolutely certain of its untruth. This does not mean that we cannot be wrong.
One can be certain that God exists, or that pigs can fly, with absolutely no evidence. That doesn’t mean they are right, but it proves that one can be absolutely certain. Certainty is a state of mind, and can exist regardless of facts. The kind of certainty that is not supported by facts should be refered to as faith. Faith requires a suspension of consciousness, whereas real certainty does not. It is the responsibility of a rational mind to ensure that it only arrives at certainty when it is proper to do so - when the facts consistently point to the truth of something - or consistently fail to.
Where I think you differ from Theists is that you claim something must be outside of reality to control nature.
I don’t see anyone claiming this. ‘Outside of reality’ is a contradiction. Reality is the sum of everything. Nothing is outside of reality. To say that something exists outside of reality, is conducive to saying that existence is non-existence. Reality = non-reality. A = non-A. That is a violation of the law of identity.
Look at it from the point of view of a cartoonist. A cartoonist can control everything, including physical laws, in his cartoon. He exists outside of the cartoon but he still exists.
The ‘inside’ of the cartoon manifests as images and sounds in your mind, but it is produced by your mind. We know that the cartoon is ink on paper, and our thoughts derived from it are seperate. This analogy implies that there is a seperation somewhere in reality, between our known world and a manipulator. This is an arbitrary idea and is not valid.
No, he cannot reamain inside of reality and control all of it. So, you argue omnipotence is possible in reality? how? Someone told me this argument and I find it very helpful. If god has no limit to his power…can god have the power to limit his power? If he does…is he still omnipotent?
You are arguing a moot point. If god is not defined and with evidence to support its existence, then there is no reason to even consider the possibility of a god. Can you define god? If not then there is no reason to even argue your point. Until evidence is provided it is merely the creation of one’s imagination. It is the equivalent of me saying: “jakjdo iajfi mkczjpoiz jk exists.” If i dont define it and i dont provide evidence, how the He11 do you even know what I saying exists? Can you refute that it exists? Probably not, because i havent specifically said what it is that I am talking about. So, without defintion there can be no argument for exists, and when there is no argument for its existence, then there is no NEED to argue against its existence. There is point and should be dismissed without any further discussion. Yet these type of debates happen all of the time. Kinda weird eh?
Most theologians agree that God cannot control reality in the sense that he cannot violate logic. When asked if God can make a rock so big that he can’t lift it, they will answer “no.” Perhaps it isn’t that God controls nature as much as it is that God is nature and, thus, can make it whatever He needs it to be.
Of course, because you are a dogmatic skeptic. I bet I could name any imaginary being, and you would not, with certainty, deny its existence. Let’s try!
Do you deny the existence of:
Zeus
Virgin Mary
Ghosts
Zombies
Santa Claus
Easter Bunny
Harry Potter
Well? Do they exist or not? If you say ‘no’, then I’m going to say: “Well, you see, there is this ‘super-reality’ where they actually do exist. Prove I’m wrong!”
Do I believe that they exist? No. Can I prove that they don’t? No. Thankyou for making my point.
But I will never say that I am “certain” that there is no God.
What is the value of “proving” that a false assertion is false? Zero. Since you haven’t explained what you mean by “certain” (especially – is certainty attainable by man? What can man be certain of?) your refusal to make a definitive decision about god strikes me as apathy at best, not actual rejection.
Of course, if you had denounced the very question of the existence of god as irrational, that would have been a different matter. It’s one thing to recognise, as a historical and academic matter, that some people have offered various denials of reality as justification for the position that they are rational beings and yet also believe in god. But your apologetics for the theists seems to go a little bit further than that: you are really not giving enough consideration to the fact that god, as typically defined, is inherently contradictory. The consequence of the standard apologists’s view of god – as “being nature” – is that god has clear, definite limits. In other words, maybe god is just a large old white male living in a spaceship. Not really god, and mortal. And he never created the universe.
Do I believe that they exist? No. Can I prove that they don’t? No. Thankyou for making my point.
You’re welcome. I’ll leave you alone now to contemplate the possible existence of the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter. Maybe one day you’ll see how these ideas contradict reality.
When a person rejects logic - and the burden of proof is a fundamental principle of logic - then there is no means to RATIONALLY speak with him. The only thing you can do is STOP TALKING.
When a person rejects logic - and the burden of proof is a fundamental principle of logic - then there is no means to RATIONALLY speak with him. The only thing you can do is STOP TALKING.
I would qualify this by saying that a person must explicitly and consistently deny the burden of proof principle. Even as long as a person is inconsistent, you can point him to the inductive evidence in favor of the principle.
Hannibal is not interested in an intellectual discussion. He is interested in hearing himself talk. He did not bother to answer a single question I asked, he merely restated the same assertions, with a couple of new insults against Objectivists thrown in for good measure.
It’s time to stop feeding him.
Yeah, I’m sorry this has been such an intellectual vacuum of a conversation. Please forgive me for not being as perfect as you and disagreeing with you. I’m through with this board. You go right on believing that you’re perfect.
Do I believe that they exist? No. Can I prove that they don’t? No. Thankyou for making my point.
Peikoff answers this quite brilliantly (in my humble opinion) in OPAR’s discussion of the arbitrary and why one shouldn’t even attempt to discuss this kind of crap at all.
He uses gremlins as an example and even makes a funny joke about people who are willing to assert random crap like “your sex life is based on your past life as an ancient Egyptian Pharoh.”
I’m only 200 or so pages into OPAR and I’m very very happy with it.
I was given OPAR as a gift and was a great one:)
Perhaps you should check it out.
Why is N. Branden such a negative figure? I just read some of his articles and he doesn’t seem so evil… what does he believe that doesn’t agree with logic and reality?