Tossing Around A Tautology

Jenna W,

Let me expose two short critiques to the points you make in post #68.

I) Related to good and evil, you say:

These concepts [good and evil] are created by man's mind.

If you mean that they are somehow appreciated in man's mind, we agree.

But if you mean that good and evil are a brew of chemical substances, or something physiological within the brain, then you would be actually saying that morality is subjective, and thus you would be opening a can of worms --namely, justifying all human acts...

Again, related to good and evil, you say:

The existence of volition *is* demonstrated.

Here I state that good and evil are created by the Creator, and then, and only then, human volition and thus human morality is possible.

Where's the evidence for this statement?

I can show you no experimental results or evidence; I only can disclose my view. My view is that morality is immaterial, & intimately related to free will --another immaterial entity.

---

II) My second critique, also related to your strictly materialistic approach, goes to the problem of demonstrating the existence of free will through experimentation. Let's go.

Firstly, to remark that pure philosophical materialism can only lead to demonstrating determinism. Trial and error --experimentation-- is a strictly materialist method of science. As determinism is opposed to free will, with the epistemological approach you consider, it only can be demonstrated the hypothetical non-existence of human free will.

But we can hold our horses, because what you actually exposed --not "demonstrated"-- are physiological phenomena related to action. To illustrate this point, in example, you say:

“The exercise and experience of free will depends upon neural mechanisms located in prefrontal cortex and associated brain systems."

[bolds mine.]

You talk about the physiology and psychology of action, not free will. You see that the “exercise and experience” of a "thing" is not the “thing” itself.

To wit: lab experimentation could only be useful for demonstrating that free will does not exist. I understand it has not.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/22, 11:54am)

Post 81

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 11:14am

William Dwyer said:

Joel wrote:

"I don't see the intelligibility of the universe as an accident." And: "I think the universe has an origin, and this origin is not 'spontaneous generation'." And: "The Creator must be perfect. He never will need anything, and that includes any 'creator' of Him. Besides, that position leads us to a problem of 'infinite regression of creators', so to speak. These are reasons of why Monotheism is the only logically sound Theism. If there is any creator, He must be One."

Joel, are you familiar with the Objectivist answer to the argument that the universe requires an origin or a causal explanation in terms of a God or creator?

William, may I understand that you agree 100% with Branden's answer?

Then, I would proceed with my critique. Thanks.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/22, 11:16am)

Post 82

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 12:20pm

Joel Catala wrote,

William, may I understand that you agree 100% with Branden's answer?

Then, I would proceed with my critique. Thanks.

Oh, absolutely! But do you really need my full agreement in order to respond? My posting of Branden's answer in response to your previous statements is license enough, no? In any case, I look forward to your response! :-)

- Bill

Post 83

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 12:43pm

But to whatever extent this process of thought is carried out, it will necessarily be limited, since you can't go on thinking forever. Therefore, the process of thought that your model of the universe involves is finite.

This doesn't make sense to me. The point (and not mine I repeat) was that the conceptual model itself would have to contain an infinite series and then it was therefore declared an absurdity and an argument against the mind being contained in the universe. Again, not a particularly strong argument in my opinion, but it has nothing to do with whether you can or not you can go on thinking forever or not. I could more strongly argue that since I indeed cannot think forever, then the model cannot be created, therefore the mind cannot be contained in the universe. While I don't believe this, I can say that the argument is indeed stronger than yours or Branden's.

if I say that everything requires the existence of something outside itself, that statement will generate a vicious regress

Ok, understood. I am not dismissing this as wrong. I only question the strength of the logical argument presented in support.

The same kind of vicious regress attends the argument that everything requires a cause.

Fine, but the argument that existence is PRIMARY is logically IDENTICAL to the argument that GOD is PRIMARY. Again, for clarity, I don't believe this but I still have the evidence problem. I understand the logic problem you describe, but without going into lengthy detail, the argument of the primacy of existence is an unsupported leap. For example, existence has an assumed arrow of time. Things exist through time, things exist in certain forms BEFORE or AFTER other things according to causal factors which also have an implied arrow of time. Well, time gets all messed up and doesn't make intuitive sense at all when we talk about the very fast or very small. Concepts like "before" and "after" break down. Our "common sense" macroscopic logic does not apply, it is arrogant to insist upon this because we know it to be untrustworthy. This is fact, not opinion. Of course I do not know the answers or at this point do I even suggest any, but I do know, for the above reasons that Branden's argument is unsupported and in my opinion is also arrogant

It is obvious that "nothingness" could be causal candidate to existence, along with the possibility of a concept that we have not discovered yet. Then, examine evidence to support one cause or another.

Branden states: Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist.

The problem I have is that this is not stated as an "IF". Stated as a fact, it remains unsupported, however plausible it may seem. I am not a skeptic in the pure sense. I do believe some things are self-evident and CAN be determined, but I also believe that there are too many leaps like this throughout Objectivism and this qualifies as one of them. Sometimes it's simple, sometimes it's not that simple, and other times we just don't know (yet). My personal implementation of logic and deduction demands acknowledgment of this uncertainty when appropriate, perhaps because my background is more scientific than philosophical. This is the biggest problem I have with Rand's body of work - inappropriate certainty in the face of large, unsupported leaps.

Branded also states:

Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

This shows a very weak and incomplete concept of time.

causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality.

Just exchange "existence" with God, and you have the creationist argument in a nutshell.

The point is that you can't give a causal explanation of existence as such, because you'd have to explain it in terms of something that already exists. Causality presupposes existence! What is it about this that you don't understand??

I understand and I object. You object, but do not understand. Again replace "existence" with "God" and you have the same thing - let's call it "ObjectiCreation".

Bob

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 3/22, 12:47pm)

Post 84

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 12:58pm

Ed Wrote

I'll let you decide which seems most feasible, I'm running with the latter one, though.

If I had to choose, I'd agree with your choice. You however, did not state this as a self-evident fact, and that's the difference. Through all the noise, my main point is that it is not intellectually responsible to make the leap to self-evidence and never admit to uncertainty. This is why I find Branden's quote and much of Rand's work to be, well, somewhat "offensive" in this regard.

Bob

Post 85

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 1:22pm

Joel,
I'm pointing out evidence for both volitional action and morality that is evidenced in the brain. This means that volition does exist and that humans have the capacity to create their morality through that volition.

Because of volition, there is *choice* and choices have consequences. These studies in no way negate personal responsibility. Take the consequences further and you have objective evidence about *how* each choice-- even the neuro/volitional creation of morality-- has consequences. Yes, there is fear of the unknown, but to what measures do the fundamentalist Islams take that? Part of that *is* volition.

We don't exist in a vacuum, therefore subjectivity in terms of "reality is in the brain" is highly inaccurate-- each one of these experiments presupposed an external real world with which humans interact with. No experiments can be done at all if everyone really thought that we made it all up inside our heads. How we use our volition decides what kinds of consequences occur in reality; and those consequences can be seen objectively by many people (see fundamentalist Islam).

As for the existence of free will: first, we have 100 billion neurons (that's the most recent estimate). That's *a lot*. And I'll just add here what I said somewhere else: I don't really even think of free will/determinism problem as applied to the brain as something I consider seriously.

One can look at it mathematically: Solving a two variable equation is easy. Solving a three variable one is harder. What if you add 10,000,000 variables (say, 10,000,000 small neuronal networks of 10,000 neurons each) into one equation? What is the outcome of an equation with 10,000,000 variables, where each variable interacts with others? What if these networks can be categorized by differing levels, so instead you have 100,000,000 networks of 1,000 neurons? The deterministic view of the brain occurs when one thinks *linearly*. But determinism does not apply when one thinks of the brain in a nonlinear, dynamic, complex way.

Okay, if one variable is one neuron, then you have a 100 billion variable equation. Now take this equation (or the 10,000,000 variable or the 100,000,000 variable equation) and apply it to say, each millisecond or second (microscopically, neuronal interactions work roughly within the millisecond to second timeframe). If one wants to "predict" the future, of course, multiplying the number of seconds into the future by one of these equations would give you your choice possibilities. That's barring any reasonable outside influence (phone calls, blackouts, shopping, roommates, weather, etc.), which adds variables to the equations. Conceptually, this is immense.

So, in conclusion, I don't think of free will as a *thing*. I think of it as a concept that describes a *very large* degree of dynamic possibilities on which volitional choice acts.

Post 86

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 1:46pm

Given your atheism and pro-science focus and the fact that you seem to be one of the most prolific writers on two Oist sites, it was surprising to see you aren't objectivist though. I promise not to witness Oism to you any more than I'd try to show Joel away from the light, but am curious where you don't see your views and Oism in sync.

I think Oism is in sync with me. I never think that I have to be in sync with an external (not-me) mind-set. Otherwise I would not be having fun being here. I do have a huge aversion to calling myself anything other than "me", though, and since I'm a stubborn individualist, I'm much more apt to call myself Jennaist. Oism is one guideline with which I interact with; in a competitive marketplace of grand ideas, I use my mind to pick, choose, and keep the best ideas for each reality-based contextual moment that is most useful for me to live. I can be very multi-faceted yet be a very stable person at the same time. Therefore, I do not see Oism as anything to witness. I don't mind suggesting Rand's works; and yet, her works are not the only works I suggest. If I were to write a pro-thought, pro-individualistic, pro-reason, pro-reality philosophical manifesto, the last thing I'd want are people who glom onto it like it's the Good Word (Biblical reference). [smile] I hope that answers your question... even it is kinda rambly.

Post 87

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 2:22pm

Bob,

===============
You however, did not state this as a self-evident fact, and that's the difference. Through all the noise, my main point is that it is not intellectually responsible to make the leap to self-evidence and never admit to uncertainty.
===============

It is because the contradiction of my adopted position is absurd -- that I admit to certainty on this matter. It's a reductio ad absurdum, conclusively ruling out one or the other of opposing positions.

You may say that I should be "open" to the "impossible" -- to what I call Alice in Wonderland Metaphysics. I should be "open" to the possibility that donkeys will fly ... tomorrow. That I can't conclusively "rule out" opposing alternatives there (or anywhere) -- because reality could be different tomorrow.

This talk is absurd. It has no more meaning than ...

jldafg; qt814390[456t45t0n9trgqregof45ct80[13ct14c5cx932ru43

Ed

Post 88

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 3:27pm

"I hope that answers your question... even it is kinda rambly."

Makes sense, and stream-of-consciousness is fine. I can see not wanting to adopt any -ism label out of concern for it seeming a kind of deference to a group mindset. I could argue oism isn't - but I said I wouldn't. ;) Thanks for the explanation.

Post 89

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 4:50pm

Bob wrote:

The point (and not mine I repeat) was that the conceptual model itself would have to contain an infinite series and then it was therefore declared an absurdity and an argument against the mind being contained in the universe. Again, not a particularly strong argument in my opinion, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you can go on thinking forever or not. I could more strongly argue that since I indeed cannot think forever, then the model cannot be created, therefore the mind cannot be contained in the universe. While I don't believe this, I can say that the argument is indeed stronger than yours or Branden's.

Well, I've argued that there is no infinite series in your model. In reply, all you've done is reassert your original point without addressing my response. Mind's exist in the universe and these minds grasp the universe as containing minds that grasp the universe. Period. Where is the infinite regress?

I wrote that a "vicious regress attends the argument that everything requires a cause." Bob replied:

Fine, but the argument that existence is PRIMARY is logically IDENTICAL to the argument that GOD is PRIMARY.

You're missing the point. Branden is responding to the theist, who argues that since everything requires a cause, the universe requires a cause, which is God. Branden is simply pointing out that the universe does not require a causal explanation, because the universe is everything that exists. If the cause exists, it is PART of the universe; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. By the same token, if God exists, HE is part of the universe; if he does NOT exist, he cannot be a cause.

In other words, what Branden has done is to show that the theist has not made his case, because the first-cause argument that everything requires a cause in virtue of its existence cannot be sustained; for, by the same token, God would require a cause in virtue of HIS existence, leading to an infinite regress.

Again, for clarity, I don't believe this but I still have the evidence problem. I understand the logic problem you describe, but without going into lengthy detail, the argument of the primacy of existence is an unsupported leap. For example, existence has an assumed arrow of time. Things exist through time, things exist in certain forms BEFORE or AFTER other things according to causal factors which also have an implied arrow of time. Well, time gets all messed up and doesn't make intuitive sense at all when we talk about the very fast or very small. Concepts like "before" and "after" break down. Our "common sense" macroscopic logic does not apply, it is arrogant to insist upon this because we know it to be untrustworthy.

I don't know what you mean by "macroscopic logic." There is only one logic, and it applies to the microscopic world as well as to the macroscopic. On what basis do you think that scientists should draw their conclusions from experimental data, if not on the basis of a non-contradictory interpretation of the evidence? If something does not make logical sense -- if it is inconsistent with the rest of our knowledge -- then it should not be accepted as true, even in subatomic physics.

This is fact, not opinion.

It is not fact; it is an interpretation of experimental data which in light of everything we already know does not make sense. The cause of something cannot happen after the effect. And no physicist with a decent respect for logical consistency would claim that it can.

Of course I do not know the answers or at this point do I even suggest any, but I do know, for the above reasons that Branden's argument is unsupported and in my opinion is also arrogant.

You can repeat this charge all you want, but you've failed to offer any evidence to support it.

It is obvious that "nothingness" could be causal candidate to existence, along with the possibility of a concept that we have not discovered yet. Then, examine evidence to support one cause or another.

What is this supposed to mean -- "nothingness" could be a causal candidate to existence?? This makes about as much sense as everything else you've been saying.

Branden states:
"Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist."
The problem I have is that this is not stated as an "IF". Stated as a fact, it remains unsupported, however plausible it may seem.

Look, in order for something to be a cause, the cause has to exist, right? This is not rocket science. It's a self-evident fact.

I am not a skeptic in the pure sense. I do believe some things are self-evident and CAN be determined, but I also believe that there are too many leaps like this throughout Objectivism and this qualifies as one of them. Sometimes it's simple, sometimes it's not that simple, and other times we just don't know (yet). My personal implementation of logic and deduction demands acknowledgment of this uncertainty when appropriate, perhaps because my background is more scientific than philosophical. This is the biggest problem I have with Rand's body of work - inappropriate certainty in the face of large, unsupported leaps.

Oh, Brother!

Branded also states:
Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
This shows a very weak and incomplete concept of time.

This is simply another of your arbitrary assertions. Bob, do you know what it means to advance a counter-argument? You don't simply assert your conclusion; you actually give an argument to support it. Imagine that!

Post 90

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 8:20pm

When Donkeys Fly

Mr. Mac Roberts:
You know, there might have been a time when donkeys flew.

Tom Edwards:
'Zat so? Any, ah, er, evidence to support that (to give a reason for expending mental energy on it)? It seems to contradict most known things in life.

Mr. Mac Roberts:
Well, it's imaginable.

Tom Edwards:
It's also imaginable that we're just mosquitoes (life span, 48 hours) -- caught in the Twilight Zone -- with human-like thoughts, feelings, and memories instilled into us; for a half-hour TV program featuring Rod Sterling as the commentator.

Mr. Mac Roberts:
Rod who??

Tom Edwards:
The specifics were not my point -- the generality was.

Mr. Mac Roberts:
Whaddaya' mean?

Tom Edwards:
Well, you made an arbitrary claim about donkeys flying (and the reason it's arbitrary is because it's non-evidential -- no evidence supports your claim). And so I thought, hell, 2 can play at that game! So I postulated -- arbitrarily -- that we're mosquitoes with human thoughts. And here's the rub, between these 2 arbitrary statements, you can't say that one is more likely than the other ...

Mr. Mac Roberts:
Why not? Flying donkeys 'seem' more 'easily' imaginable.

Tom Edwards:
Based on what evidence?

Mr. Mac Roberts:
Well, I just have a 'feeling' that it's more likely that donkeys flew -- than that we're now mosquitoes with human thoughts.

Tom Edwards:
A feeling??

Mr. Mac Roberts:
Yeah, sure. Emotions can be tools of knowledge, you know.

Tom Edwards:
So, because you 'like' the idea of flying donkeys more than you 'like' the idea of mosquito-man -- you hold one more credible than the other, even though they both plainly and clearly contradict the facts of reality?

Mr. Mac Roberts:
That about sums up my position. Anything's possible, so I'll 'choose' to believe what I like. Knowing there's no guardrails of reality that won't bend when pressed upon -- by my subjective imagination.

Tom Edwards:
So, your imagination is primary -- and existence is secondary?

Mr. Mac Roberts:
That about sums up my position.

Tom Edwards:
I would like for you to do me a favor then. Go find the highest bridge and jump off -- while imagining that gravity doesn't exist. Once you do this, I promise, you'll never hear from me again about this debate.

Mr. Mac Roberts:
That's just mean. In the case of gravity, you can't just switch it on or off with your imagination! You're building up a Straw Man argument.

Tom Edwards:
No I'm not. Reality is one way -- and it is not other ("imaginable") ways. This aspect of reality applies, in the same manner, to flying donkeys, mosquito-men, levitating imaginers, and matter creation. The reason they're all false, is because they contradict that which is true.

In the case of the donkey, an absence of wings makes flying impossible. In the case of mosquito-men, an absence of a dorso-lateral pre-frontal cortex (required for advanced discussions such as this) makes mosquito-debates impossible. Etc., etc.

Mr. Mac Roberts:
Well, I'd still like to believe that "sometimes" my imaginations could successfully contradict reality -- and still exist (even though most everything else known about reality would then be false).

Tom Edwards:
Well then, you seem more belief-sympathetic, than you are truth-sympathetic.

Mr. Mac Roberts:
No, I just want my imaginable (though contradictory) beliefs to be "possibly" true.

Tom Edwards:
Right.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/22, 8:22pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/22, 11:45pm)

Post 91

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:03am

Boy, this thread has so many spin-offs, it's hard to know where it's going. We started off talking about an alleged tautology - the law of identity - then spun off to the "first-cause" argument for God, and now Joel has raised the issue of morality as deriving from a divine source. He writes:

Here I state that good and evil are created by the Creator, and then, and only then, human volition and thus human morality is possible.

Joel, are you familiar with Rand's argument for a naturalistic conception of good and evil, in which she localizes morality in the requirements of the moral agent's life and happiness? According to Rand, what is good for a human being is what furthers his or her life and happiness; what is evil is what hinders it. This is a biocentric view of morality rather than a theocentric view. It is one which bases morality on the moral agent's biological needs, rather than on the commandments of God. According to this view, the good is simply a means to end. Given that your highest value -- your ultimate end or goal -- is your life and happiness, what is good for you -- what you should choose to do -- is whatever serves that end; and what is bad for you -- what you should avoid doing -- is whatever interferes with it.

However, what this view of morality also requires are moral principles, because human beings need a long-range guide to action. One such principle is that of individual rights, because each person needs to be free to act on his or her judgment in order to achieve his or her values. Rights are also required to ensure a peaceful, prosperous and productive society (since it is only that kind of society that is conducive to the moral agent's life and happiness). In addition, in order to achieve one's values, one must practice certain virtues, e.g., rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride -- the seven Objectivist virtues. This is a brief outline of the Objectivist ethics, as Rand conceived it.

If you know Greek philosophy, I'm sure you are aware of Socrates' famous question: Are the commandments right, because God wills them, or does he will them because they are right? If they are right, because he wills them, then anything that God wills would be morally right, even murder. In the Old Testament, for example, God commanded Moses to stone a man to death for working on the Sabbath. This, of course, is a particularly cruel form of murder. So, if God sets the standards, then those standards could commit us to doing evil in the name of God.

On the other hand, if God wills the commandments because they are right, then God is adhering to a moral standard that exists independently of his will, and is simply following the standard, not determining it. In that case, we can judge God's commandments by a higher standard to which even he is bound to adhere, and if his commandments don't reflect that standard -- as when God commanded Moses to commit murder -- we can properly disobey them.

In short, there is no justification for basing one's morality on the dictates of a supernatural being, even assuming that such a being could be demonstrated to exist, unless of course he were threatening one with eternal torture and damnation should one disobey him, in which case, one would not be morally liable for following his evil dictates, since one's choices would then not be free. As Rand puts it, "morality is the chosen, not the forced, the understood not the obeyed; morality is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."

- Bill

Post 92

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:04am

Jenna W said:

I don't really even think of free will/determinism problem as applied to the brain as something I consider seriously.

I already wondered about this possibility. Perhaps I should have figured it before.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/23, 4:17am)

Post 93

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:18am

Mr Bob Mac said,

Things exist through time, things exist in certain forms BEFORE or AFTER other things according to causal factors which also have an implied arrow of time.

Perhaps the following point will be useful to you: if He exists, the Creator cannot be constrained by time; in fact, the Creator must be the Creator of time.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/23, 2:19am)

Post 94

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:33am

William said,

This [Rand's] is a biocentric view of morality rather than a theocentric view.

I must disagree: rather than biocentric, her view is "happycentric". And I don't see happiness as the best standard for morality: happiness is subjective --and fleeting--, while the true standard of morality must be absolute, in the sense of universal --valid for all volitional beings, wherever they may be, whatever their mood is--, eternally.

According to this view, the good is simply a means to end.

Notice that this is a rewrite of: "[according to this view] the end justifies the means"... a view that I find unacceptable, as it makes morality contingent on the ends. To say the least, not an absolute standard.

what this [Rand's] view of morality also requires are moral principles,

Then this view does not make sense. Morality means moral principles. Morality is the highest set of principles a volitional being can adopt. Two examples related to what you raised, William:

1.- "individual rights" --and for that matter, all sort of rights-- are only valid if deduced from morality.
2.- A virtue can only be defined as "virtue" if is in accordance with morality.

William adds:

Are the commandments right, because God wills them, or does he will them because they are right?

I don't see the two options as contradictory. In fact, I see both options as correct. To be consistent, I must say here that morality exists because is His will. Consequently, without a Creator, there would be no morality.

If they are right, because he wills them, then anything that God wills would be morally right, even murder.

Murder is never condoned by Him. The exact commandment (in Hebrew) means not to slay an innocent person.

In the Old Testament, for example, God commanded Moses to stone a man to death for working on the Sabbath.

You apparently did the literalist interpretation, which is wrong. Your error (probably) comes from the fact that the Five Books of Moses are about a 5% of the Sinaitic message, lacking of the remaining 95% to be complete. Indeed, rabbinical Judaism says that the Written Torah --the Books of Moses-- alone lack of foundation.

On the other hand, if God wills the commandments because they are right, then God is adhering to a moral standard that exists independently of his will, and is simply following the standard, not determining it.

My position is that Creator of everything (visible and invisible, material and immaterial) created the moral standard. And I don't see why morality must necessarily exist independently of the will of the Creator. I think it's just the opposite.

In that case, we can judge God's commandments by a higher standard to which even he is bound to adhere, and if his commandments don't reflect that standard -- as when God commanded Moses to commit murder -- we can properly disobey them.

I think your conclusion has been too hasty in this point.

(In a few hours I will post my reply on the "prime mover" issue.)

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/23, 5:02am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/23, 6:39am)

Post 95

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 5:39am

Well, I've argued that there is no infinite series in your model. In reply, all you've done is reassert your original point without addressing my response.

And you're wrong. Just because you evade, or don't read my reply doesn't mean my point doesn't exist. You will never admit a mistake or possible weakness in your argument. This is the Objectivist style. I've come to expect it. I am not arguing that I have the "correct" argument in one sense. I am only asserting that both (Branden's/yours and the Theist position) are equally weak. I have demostrated that because they are equivalent arguments.

You're missing the point. Branden is responding to the theist, who argues that since everything requires a cause, the universe requires a cause, which is God.

Hardly missing the point. You are being deliberately evasive here. You "forget" to mention the theist will then argue that God requires no cause and is primary. The Objectivist argues that existence is primary. Logically identical and equally unfounded. Let me say this another way, that hopefully is more clear.

According to the "normal" view of cause, effect, and existence, I agree that a logical paradox exists if existence isn't primary. I'm not arguing that donkeys fly here like goofball Ed seems to think. The problem though, is that it is simply arrogant, and scientific history has shown, often WRONG to assume a paradox cannot be explained by a more complete logic and understanding of reality. Cause and effect is not what you think it is - this is certain. Yet you cling to it with a zealous faith. We have only a beginning understanding of reality, time and space. You have displayed that your understanding is almost zero. Yet you continue to pontificate. Paradoxes are routinely explained as we discover more and improve our models. Ever study the history of science? Didn't think so.

In other words, what Branden has done is to show that the theist has not made his case.

And therefore neither has he, for it is the same argument.

I don't know what you mean by "macroscopic logic." There is only one logic, and it applies to the microscopic world as well as to the macroscopic. On what basis do you think that scientists should draw their conclusions from experimental data, if not on the basis of a non-contradictory interpretation of the evidence? If something does not make logical sense -- if it is inconsistent with the rest of our knowledge -- then it should not be accepted as true, even in subatomic physics.

You display a profound ignorance here. It is very intellectually important and humbling to study and understand these types of paradoxical and counter-intuitive phenomena. You really need to understand some basics here. Again, cause and effect is not what you think it is. Even simple things like the twins paradox might help open your mind. That paragraph is just nonsensical babble.

Here's a simple little question. Even among the "learned" university graduates, something like 80%+ do not get this right. Be honest, and don't google it until you answer.

We observe trees growing over time and we use this wood from trees for many things. Where does the wood come from? You should be able to explain this in a simple sentence - just a few words, you don't need any scientific jargon at all. If you need to search for it, you have a reality problem. If you get it right then you are in the minority and this shows at least a basic appreciation for our world - good for you. Don't bother telling me whether you succeeded or not, it's for your own benefit and I wouldn't believe you anyway.

Answer this now! Then see if you're right. If you cannot answer this simplest of reality questions, yet you continue to espouse your authority on REALITY, you should shut your mouth and do some serious reflection before you start babbling again. And I don't mean this personally, I put that out there in a general sense.

Bob

Post 96

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 5:54am

FWIW, the short answer is EDITED: Will add later....

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 3/23, 5:55am)

Post 97

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 7:07am

Bob,

============
We observe trees growing over time and we use this wood from trees for many things. Where does the wood come from?

If you cannot answer this simplest of reality questions, yet you continue to espouse your authority on REALITY, you should shut your mouth and do some serious reflection before you start babbling again.
============

Translation:
You have to know everything, before it's possible for you to know anything.

Ed

Post 98

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:22am

Ed Wrote:

You have to know everything, before it's possible for you to know anything.

No, seriously, it's not a trick question. My reason for asking it is twofold.

1) I feel that it's a basic question that anyone who is said to be educated at even a basic level should know. We all should know at least something about reality and this seems like a logical litmus test of this to me.

2) The answer, in the not too distant past, would have seemed about as likely as donkeys flying out of my butt :-) Seriously, the answer not too long ago would have seemed counterintuitive and nonsensical, but we now see it as fact.

The short answer is that the wood comes from the air.

The long answer involves the details of photosynthesis and so on and how the carbon from the carbon dioxide in the air is processed to build the carbon-based wood. Again, the short answer is one word - AIR.

Many people initially say something like it comes from water and material in the ground or something like that. This is wrong. The correct answer is air. You'd be called a nutcase for postulating this not too long ago. I've been raked over the coals here, not for offering an alternative, but for merely suggesting that it is wise not to assume that reality is nothing more than what our common sense tells us, and pointing out known errors. It HAS ALWAYS proven to be more, and quite often quite different than or even counter-intuitive to our initial perception.

EDIT: just to add - the problem with the seemingly simple primacy of existence argument is that there's a whole bunch of hidden concepts, assumptions, and biases in there. Some of which might be true, others might be suspect, some might be (actually some are) dead wrong. Without going into all of the details, I just mean there's a bunch of assumptions about the nature of time, causality and existence that are unfounded at best, and some demonstrably misunderstood and so forth.

It is a scientific FACT that I could observe A happened before B, you could observe that B happened before A and we BOTH could be CORRECT! This is not fantasy, this is REALITY! This fact alone begs many questions.

Bob

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 3/23, 8:36am)

Post 99

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:30am