The Arbitrary

david: you said,

"the purpose of epistemology is to make life meaningful,"

ummm, no.

dictionary.com defines epistemology as:

"The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity."

notice that "making life meaningful" has nothing to do with any of this and that it is much more in accord with "empirical philosophies" you deride.

citizen rat can at least define his words correctly, even if he can't see their logical consequences. you contrariwise, seem to think that intentionally misusing words constitutes an argument

Post 61

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 5:10am

David,

Thanks for answering my question.

I know it means something to you, but it means nothing to me.

God is the creator of the universe ...

To me, "universe" means all there is, all there ever has been, and all that ever will be. If there were such things as phoenixes, god's, or Santa Clauses, they would be included as members of the universe. Obviously you mean something else by universe, which you do not explain.

Since the universe is everything that is, has been, or ever will be, if there were such a thing as a "creator" it would be included. Since by creator is usually meant someone who makes something, but you are using the word, apparently, for something that is responsible for the universe, which would include a creator if there were one, a creator would create itself. You may insist a creator is not part of the universe, that is, part of everything, past, present, and future, that is. But that is what we have been saying all along.

Finally, you are attempting to explain God in terms of "universe" and "creator" both of which are without meaning as you are using them; but, even if they were meaningful, it does not explain what you mean by the word God. Simply saying, "a dingus is what does such-n-such" does not tell anyone what a dingus is. You refer to A is A, but apparently do not know what that means.

A refers to a things identity and a things identity is whatever all of it qualities, attributes, and characteristics are. A is A means, "anything with these specific qualities, attributes, and characteristics is a thing with these specific qualities, attributes, and characteristics; if any of these qualities, attributes or characteristics are missing or different, it is something else, not A.

If you want to explain what God is, you must explain what qualities, attribute, or characteristics a God has. Since there can be nothing with no qualities, attributes, or characteristics, either God has some qualities, or God is simply nothing.

(Generalities are not attributes, by the way. "A flambucket takes people to the mall," [or creates universes] does not explain or define what a flambucket is. The explanation could equally apply to a bus, a taxi, or a desire.)

Regi

Post 62

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:55am

"Since the universe is everything that is, has been, or ever will be, if there were such a thing as a "creator" it would be included. Since by creator is usually meant someone who makes something, but you are using the word, apparently, for something that is responsible for the universe, which would include a creator if there were one, a creator would create itself. You may insist a creator is not part of the universe, that is, part of everything, past, present, and future, that is.."

This reminds me of Bertrand Russell's paradox, which is used to illustrate that a universal set is an invalid concept in set theory. For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with it, it runs as follows:

Consider a set of all set that do not contain themselves.
Does this set contain itself? If yes, then it is not a set that does not contain itself, and therefore does not belong in itself.
If no, then it does not contain itself, and therefore belongs in itself.

As both results are contradictory, we cannot have a set that contains itself, as the admission of such a set necessarily leads to a contradiction.

I thought this might lead to an interesting chain of thought. I will follow up with my thoughts on this as concerns the idea of a God later...

Post 63

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 9:56am

David:

Robert and Regi have made excellent points. I would just like to point out one more thing.

David's first post in this thread questioned my statement that a belief in a creator is arbitrary, i.e. bears no relationship to reality. You described the big bang as a creation event, implying the necessity of a creator. But you implicitly conceded that if a better explanation of the evidence were offered, "perhaps an eternal universe" would be acceptable. You said:

As for my standard, it's really down to believing that it's more plausible to assume a creation event as per the evidence package that supports the big bang, eg, background cosmic radiation and so on....if it weren't for that evidence, then perhaps an eternal universe would suffice of necessity.

When I brought forth evidence that cast some doubt on the big bang theory, you responded as follows:

I haven't read that yet....I'll do so when I can, although I'm curious why there hasn't been an outpouring of new superior competing models,...I don't recall hearing about any.
Curious, but I suspect at this stage the big bang model retains its legitimacy as the most coherent model as per the philosophy of science which allows for observational clashes with theory.

Glenn Fletcher then pointed out that a reputable physicist had developed a theory that argued against the very notion of a beginning of time and reinforced the notion of an eternal universe. Faced with a "new superior competing model", you responded as follows:

Hello world.

My position is that God is a necessary inference to explain the universe, that's my evidence.

"The existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of god." Or to put it more clearly: "The existence of existence is evidence of the existence of god." This is a classic arbitrary proposition. There will never be any facts to contradict or to support this proposition, because facts only pertain to, and only arise from, that which exists, not that which is postulated to be seperate from existence.

Observe that you include evidence that can be construed to support your position -- evidence such as the big bang theory -- but exclude evidence that does not support your position -- evidence such as the theory pointed out by Glenn. It is you, David, who are guilty of starting with a pre-determined position and then designing an epistemology that permits your position. And when you are caught doing this, you push your proposition outside of reality and into the arbitrary.

Post 64

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:39am

The essence of what Robert says is...even if it threatens your spiritual well being, accept it as at least it's true...LOL.

Post 65

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:45am

To me, "universe" means all there is, all there ever has been, and all that ever will be. If there were such things as phoenixes, god's, or Santa Clauses, they would be included as members of the universe. Obviously you mean something else by universe, which you do not explain.

Regi.

I consider the universe to be as I've already explained as "matter and forces".
You've metaphysically decided that it's more palatable to you to believe that the universe has always existed, and accept that as a brute fact, ignoring, or at least never mentioning how it ever came about.

If you want to explain what God is, you must explain what qualities, attribute, or characteristics a God has. Since there can be nothing with no qualities, attributes, or characteristics, either God has some qualities, or God is simply nothing.

God is a necessary inference, he's necessary as creation from nothing seems bizarre and unlikely.
I consider that to be logically secure, any other qualities I assign to God are guesses, and I don't expect people to accept them.

Post 66

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 3:29pm

Fellow Objectivists: I would not argue philosophy with someone who would say that creation from nothing is unlikely.

Hence my lack of enthusiasm for continuing with certain threads here on SOLO.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/03, 4:22pm)

Sorry for the above outburst. I realize, because of the nature of fora, that we must continue--at least for a few pages, for the benefit of young minds.

Now if I could get my enthusiasm up again ...

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/03, 4:24pm)

Post 67

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 1:39am

David:

"The essence of what Robert says is...even if it threatens your spiritual well being, accept it as at least it's true...LOL."

1: that isnt what I said. I corrected you on the blatant misuse of a word.

2: while that isnt what I said, it is true. the facts are what they are and they dont care if they are helpful or harmful to you. would you deny the existence of a murderer who has a gun to your head because his existence is harmful to you? of course not! those facts which stand to hurt or destroy you will do so whether or not you accept them.

3: why do you find this funny? do you have such a low, sub-human disrespect for truth that you must laugh at even the very thought of prioritizing it above mindless whims?

Post 68

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 1:39am

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 3:06am

while that isnt what I said, it is true. the facts are what they are and they dont care if they are helpful or harmful to you. would

LOL, Robert, your metaphyiscally determined epistemologies DETERMINES your FACTS...got it yet smart guy?
No-one here is doubting undeniable facts such as we fall off cliffs, and nature will not let us off if we don't agree with her.

3: why do you find this funny? do you have such a low, sub-human disrespect for truth that you must laugh at even the very thought of prioritizing it above mindless whims?

Your certainty is funny...and the idea that ANY philosophy can improve mankinds lot in the absense of eliminating the root cause..which is child abuse, this includes being deprived of the necessary education to think critically.

Do you really think it was exclusively your intelligence that enabled you to utter the occasional coherent statement, are you not aware that many serial killers have highish IQ's?

Post 70

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 7:01am

David:

LOL, Robert, your metaphyiscally determined epistemologies DETERMINES your FACTS...got it yet smart guy?

I have documented that it is you, David, who starts with a conclusion and then adjusts the rules of epistemology to permit that conclusion. However, you are correct in the sense that it is the nature of existence, A is A, as determined by metaphysics, that forms the foundation of Objectivist epistemology.

By the way, if it is okay to accept one contradiction -- the existence of a creator -- is it not also acceptable to admit others as well? How do we then decide which contradictions are acceptable and which are not?

Your certainty is funny...

Then I assume you were actually joking when you wrote, in your first post in this thread:

I'm simply curious about the origin of the universe and I'm looking for both logical and epistemological certainty with this issue.

If certainty was not your purpose, what was?

Do you really think it was exclusively your intelligence that enabled you to utter the occasional coherent statement, are you not aware that many serial killers have highish IQ's?

Which proves what, exactly, other than the fact that the existence of volition means smart people can be evil?

Post 71

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 10:54am

By the way, if it is okay to accept one contradiction -- the existence of a creator -- is it not also acceptable to admit others as well? How do we then decide which contradictions are acceptable and which are not?

Michael.

The creator's existence is known conceptually, he would exist in a supernatural realm...this realm having been eliminated at the epistemological level by atheistic objectivists determined to do a Neitchze{go mad}.

Which proves what, exactly, other than the fact that the existence of volition means smart people can be evil?

It suggests that upbringing plays the decisive role in adult outcomes.
(Edited by Admin on 5/06, 3:03am)

Post 72

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 11:41pm

Greetings!

(David's text is in quotation)

I hate to have to drag this on any further (being it my fist post to this forum), but in the absence of a challenge to David's claim that "God is inferred," somehow, from existence, I feel it is necessary to demand that David demonstrate the inference to God from existence.

Inference: The relationship that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a logical argument, or the process of drawing a conclusion from premises that support it inductively or deductively.

David, may I have an example of God being inferred which falls within the above definition of inference, please?

��he's necessary as creation from nothing seems bizarre and unlikely.�

Where to begin? Creation is an action that humans attribute to the intentional bringing about of a thing that did not previously exist�a car. A car�s existence is contingent upon

humans bringing it into existence (�creation,� if you will). Another example is this website.

�I consider that to be logically secure,��

It is logically secure to hold that something from nothing is logically impossible, which is why, a God is, not only not inferred from existence, but also not necessary for existence.

What is, on the other hand, logically impossible, is an existent �nothing.� Since �nothing� cannot exist, it leaves us with no choice but to accept that existence is, was and always will be. From this it is logical to conclude that existence is not contingent.

What I do not know is, was and always will be, is �your� God.

(I know that this is something most of us here are fully aware of.)

Post 73

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:36am

Rodney,

re your post #7, I voted for your point, even though I don't agree with it.

I no longer believe, if I ever really did, that free will consists of choosing between thinking and not thinking. I think this is one of the many false dichotomies set up within Objectivism that create an instant trap.

For the same reason, there is much within Rand's epistemology which I no longer buy, though I do agree with your notion of measurement omission. (well done, btw.)

One cannot treat concepts, no matter at what level of abstraction, as being the equivalent of their own CCDs. To put it another way, it is not reasonable to judge a philosophy, or a man, or anything else, only according to fundamentals. Man has not yet evolved to the point where we are capable of knowing, in every case, what the metaphysical fundamentals are. My recollection is that Rand maintained that "fundamentals" should be viewed as epistemological rather than metaphysical, which puts her squarely in the traditional "conceptualist" camp on the Problem of Universals, even though she would not admit it. The problem is that knowledge truly _is_ contextual, and it very well may be what passes for "knowledge" today will be totally discarded in the future because of newly acquired evidence to the contrary -- this in fact happens on almost a daily basis in one scietific field after another, and we still cratching the surface of every field of knowledge there is. We are in the "naming phase" and the "descriptive phase," but we are a long way from the "explanatory phase." Occam's Razor is an epistemological principal, not metaphysical.

Psychology is still in its infancy, so we cannot say with any degree of confidence what the exact mechanisms of thought truly are. I take that to mean that "psycho-epistemology" is not a stolen concept, but rather an empty one, far too vague to be of use. Rand use to claim that she did not have a subconscious -- that the entire totality of her knowledge was available to her an any given instant and that there was nothing "underneath" it. She thought of herself, or so she claimed, as such a brilliant thinking machine that she had literally thought of subconscious out of existence. To which I say, BS.

Also, if memory serves, the Objectivist position did not admit of the existence of an "unconscious" mind, which makes sense. This did away with an entire host of baggage ideas and authors, alike -- from "Forms" to the "Id", and Plato to Freud.

Getting back to your point about subconsciously knowing how much effort a given situation requires, I don't believe that we do. This is not a matter of honesty, but rather of fallibility and available time: we would still need to test every conclusion, no matter how much honest effort we expended to arrive at the conclusion to begin with, and we still might not get there.

Gotta hang it up for tonight.

-John

Post 74

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:12pm