 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/29/2009 9:09 AM (GMT -6) |   | A short conversation I had.
QUESTIONER: Is God infinite? If no, then God does not exist, for God by definition is beginingless. If God had a beginning then his existence requires a cause other than himself, in which case he cannot be the first-cause creator. If not the first-cause, then he’s insufficient to halt an infinite regress of causal explanations for existence. If yes, then God does not exist, for actual infinites cannot exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.
TOM: This is self-refuting. You admit that whatever comes into being requires a causal explanation. And you agree that an infinite regress must be avoided and can only be avoided by an infinite first cause. But you deny there can be such a cause in the required sense for it would constitute an actual infinite, which you argue is impossible. If you’ve proved anything, it’s that nothing exists at all.
QUESTIONER: Well, the problem is you appear to be ignorant of Objectivism, and don’t recognize the proper starting point, which is existence itself. I don’t want to bother teaching you Objectivism, but the short answer is, the totality of existence (whether termed the universe or omniverse) is eternal and never came into existence, as one could only appeal to non-existence for its starting point. The totality of existence is axiomatic, and being such, it is eternal.
Being eternal, the totality of existence is not subject to a qualitative or a quantitative infinite, since it’s a necessary phenomenon and has nothing external to itself that would place it in a temporal framework. Therefore, this would make the totality of existence (whether termed the Universe or omniverse) finite in identity but indefinite in sum.
TOM: (Haven’t responded yet.)
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/29/2009 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Ah yes...the Objectivists. I actually value quite a lot of what they have to say once you get past metaphysics. They hold to THE PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE whereas you and I, Tom, would, in their words, hold to THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The primacy of existence is one of their core tenants from which much else of their thinking springs. And it precludes the possibility of ANYTHING resembling God...i.e. the primacy of consciousness. Although in later stages of their thinking I think there are theistic structures that are functional equivalents to some Objectivist structures (mostly Enlightenment theism)
And what is weird is that given all that...once you move out of the foundational areas of their philosophy...after open theists, they are probably the strongest proponents of libertarian free will.
Ayn Rand formulated the basics prior to widespread acceptance of current cosmological theories including the Big Bang...so that is where I start with them. If there was a Big Bang, there was a beginning...and their eternal universe (see also Aristotle) goes out the window. But they will probably just appeal to an oscillating universe or something...Big Bang...Big Crunch...Big Bang...Big Crunch...Big Bang...
Another point to make with them is that although IN THEIR philosophy the primacy of existence is axiomatic and thus cannot be attacked and NEED NOT be defended...that doesn't mean that it is true. In other words...they JUST ACCEPT IT...and CANNOT defend it (they say NEED NOT...) But when they do proffer a few words on it's behalf they are gonna probably appeal to the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.
Yeah, see here:
--------
"The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.
The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).
The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute."
-------
And here:
"According to Objectivism, existence has primacy over consciousness in two senses. First, epistemologically: human knowledge begins with (sensory) awareness of the external world. It does not begin with awareness of one's own ideas. The reason is that ideas or states of consciousness are necessarily ideas about something, and that something is what one is aware of. One could not become aware of one's own consciousness, unless one first had some states of consciousness to be aware of; and one could not have states of consciousness, unless one first had something else that one was conscious of.(2)
Second, existence has a metaphysical primacy over consciousness: that is, the external world exists prior to, and is not dependent on, our minds. This also implies that the external world has its specific characteristics (identity) prior to, and independent of, the states of our minds. And this is for the same reason: in order to have states of consciousness, there must first be things for us to become conscious of (whereas the converse is not the case), because consciousness is consciousness of things. Consciousness, again, is a faculty of becoming aware of things, not of creating or altering them."
---------
So, Tom, either you are unable or unwilling to see this. And any argument you offer against it will probably cause you to be branded "irrational" The objectivist unpardonable sin.
You might check here for a possible response:
maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/01/is-ayn-rand-a-good-philosopher-rand-on-the-primacy-of-existence.html
Also, here is something I have wondered how an objectivist would answer...It doesn't really defend our position...maybe a more process metaphysics...but I would be interested in how an objectivist would answer:
1) Objectivists believe in existence AND in consciousness.
2) They believe that consciousness somehow emerges from existence
3) If existence has always been...is it not possible that consciousness has always been? (Pressed, they may say yes, but then preclude any kind of Omni-consciousness)
Keep me informed on your interaction. I am interested. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 1/2/2010 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | "Seems to me that substance is correlative with attribute. Thus, neither is secondary to the other. If the eternal necessary substance is one with the attribute we call the capacity for consciousness, both the substance and its capacity for consciousness are eternal. So to me, the objectivists are making a category mistake."
Hey Jeff,
"If the eternal necessary substance is one with the attribute we call the capacity for consciousness"
That's not exactly what the Objectivists say. They consider both Existence and consciousness as axiomatic...but they are not one. Consciousness is something that can emerge (I guess when certain conditions are right...I haven't seen any of them address it that deeply)
Look at it this way. Christians who believe in ex nihilo creation believe that 1) consciousness (God's) precedes creation and 2) God is the ground of creation (however we want to explain the grounding concept).
Objectivists would say that Existence grounds consciousness. And they would probably say that no such consciousness could ever be omniscient. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2010 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Asher, I didn't mean "one" in the sense of unity/harmony. I mean "one" as in "one such case."
But basically I was saying that, for humans, attribute and substance seem to be correlative. If I experience some quale, I naturally ask "what" produced it. If attributes/properties need not inhere in any correlative being/substance, we could consistently posit no beings at all.
Truly, it would be bizarre if God merely had a capacity for consciousness without experiencing consciousness into the infinite past prior to some first conscious experience of His. But that's probably why most people tend to think consciousness is something like an essential attribute of God. As such (consciousness being an essential attribute), neither existence (being/substance) nor consciousness (attribute/property) is primary. They would be correlative, with neither being secondary to the other as far as humans could tell.
Emergence of conscious states after an infinite past without consciousness does seem bizarre. But we don't have to posit that. We need only ask is teleology the more natural way of thinking about really or not (because if teleology is categorical, it just IS a causal relation that accounts for the system we call the universe)? I think the answer is obvious. Most atheists can't even describe reality WITHOUT teleological language. And they can not cash out that teleological language into non-teleological language without finality. And positing two kinds of finality--intelligent AND non-intelligent--is no more rational than positing only intelligent finality for the simple reason that positing both is less parsimonious.
And it may very well be that finality is correlative with intelligent final causes to the human mind anyway, seeings how no one can articulate an account of the world without using teleological language. I mean, we can posit that we're having illusions when we do so, as Dawkins etal do, but positing it doesn't make it so. Besides, once you allow for categories themselves being illusory, you've committed intellectual suicide.
You can't prove there are proofs. And you can't prove there are no proofs. We either ARE competently designed to apprehend or we are NOT. And if we aren't, all belief is literally blind faith just as Porter, Lewis, Plantinga, etc. argue. And if that is the case, nothing is required. For where nothing is given, nothing is required. There is no other conceivable RATIONAL basis for accountability than requirements being conditioned upon what is given.. There are other ARBITRARY ones, though. And humans seem to have no problem embracing them. And by doing so, they are usurping the very perogative of God. Much of State action is precisely that.
All belief that isn't blind-faith belief, must ultimately be grounded in a non-blind belief that we are competently designed to APPREHEND, and, therefore, that very belief must be GIVEN (which is what makes it NON-blind), either via something like epistemological and/or sentient constraints or by some other mode of divine revelation. But that belief must be truly GIVEN, not chosen blindly, if there is accountability associated with what one believes. And if actions are only known to be obligatory in terms of belief (i.e., in terms of something like, "ideas have consequence"), then belief about ALL accountability (that of belief and bodily action) is ultimately grounded in the non-blind belief that we are competently designed to apprehend--at least to some extent which is related to the extent of our accountability.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 1/3/2010 10:58:54 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:48 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|