Tossing Around A Tautology

Joel,

===============
Ed, I think that our dissent can be placed here: what is the metaphysical character of the objective, universal, eternal morality.
===============

Yes that's our dissent, alright -- the metaphysical source for an objective (same for all folks) and timeless morality. I say it's natural (human nature), you say it's supernatural (God-given).

===============
(If you think it is somehow "engraved" in the human genes, how is that people has free will?.)
===============

I'm not talking about things like the uniform emotional response to the murder of innocents, across cultures and time-periods. That's what Michael Shermer is trying to do -- with his recent book: The Science of Good & Evil.

Shermer is wrong to base morality on anyone's (or everyone's) emotional responses, though -- because emotions stem from held premises, and premises can, and often are, wrong.

I'm basing it (morality) on what the members of our species require for happy living. There is a formula -- one you can't sway too far from -- for human happiness.

Take the thief. Thieves were trying to gain value by doing what they did, but it won't work -- BECAUSE they're human. Thieves won't ever achieve genuine happiness, because they are screwing with the objective formula (they are swaying too far from it's prescription).

Thieves, in order to attempt to live their lives, have to become liars. Liars get caught (though thieves do, too). When liars are caught, the world trusts them less. When the world loses trust in you, then you can't have friends. When you can't have friends ...

I could go on and on and on (about how we're punished BY our sins, not FOR them), but I'll stop there.

Ed

Post 161

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:03am

William Dwyer, wrote:
"[...] ultimate (non-moral) values -- viz., happiness and self-preservation -- are the source and foundation of moral values, because morality is a means to end."
and:
The ends define what means are moral, because, and only because, what is moral is simply whatever means are conducive to the end.
William, with the first sentence, you are telling us that happiness and self-preservation are amoral values;

With the second sentence, you are telling us that you pursue you ends by whatever means are conductive to them...

Can't you see utter amorality in your position?

No, because, as I indicated, morality is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Remember, morality tells us what we "ought" to do, and it only makes sense to say that one "ought" to do something, if doing it is a means to a desirable end or goal. To say that one "ought" to pursue a final end or goal makes no sense at all, because the follow-up question would then be: Why? For the sake of what end or goal "ought" I to pursue it? Of course, there isn't any end or goal beyond the final end itself. Hence, the final end (to which everything else is a means) cannot be morally prescribed, because it is not a means to any value beyond itself.

I wrote, "Happiness and suffering are not miraculous experiences that bear no relation to one's biological nature." Joel replied,

I never said that: the experiences of happiness and suffering are related to our nature in the most evident manner; but, most relevantly from a morality point of view, happiness and suffering are related to what goals we choose and how we pursue them. Then, our acts carry consequences --to our body, our psyche, and our soul.

My point was that you can't choose just any goals and expect that their achievement will make you happy. Satisfying an addict's goal for another fix will not bring him happiness; it will simply make him more dependent and dysfunctional. Whether or not the goals you choose will make you happy depends on whether they are conducive to your life and well-being.

Besides, if you can't appreciate the huge miracle of nature, that's a big problem.

If nature is a miracle, when what isn't? A "miracle" in contrast to what? To a naturally occurring event? But, according to you, nature itself is a miracle, so there are no non-miracles. In fact, far from applying to nature, a "miracle" refers to an alleged violation of natural law and is therefore, by definition, impossible. Which reveals yet another contradiction in your position: If a miracle is that which, by definition, violates natural law, then natural law cannot itself be a miracle.

Joel wrote, "An absolutely, eternally true morality is only possible thanks to the Big I, Who is the Creator of morality." I replied, "Well, you can say this all you want, but you have yet to provide an argument to support it. So far, it's just an arbitrary assertion." To which Joel replied,

Here you have the argument: without an eternal moral being, morality would be temporary, subjectively defined, and ultimately arbitrary, thus, no morality at all. So for morality to exist, He must exist.

Joel, where have you been? You repeat this argument as if I had said nothing in reply to it.

I wrote, "Are you telling me that an ancient book of myths and stories, like the Bible, constitutes a scientific validation of a supernatural dimension inhabited by angels [...]" Joel replied,

Brushing aside your disrespectful tone, with the sentence

"[...] there are ways to check it out. A precondition is to be intellectually honest. Then use reason and observation; of course, the scientific method is very useful dealing with reality",

I meant the following: as the rest of the available written information, the Bible must be approached using the scientific method. That, before making hasty or unwarranted conclusions.

The scientific method already tells you that miracles aren't possible, so if a book compiled from writings over 2,000 years old describes events that defy natural law, it is reasonable to view them as tales of myth and magic, not as plausible events that merit serious scientific scrutiny. If someone tells you that Santa Claus delivers presents on Christmas, are you going to demand that his statement be scientifically investigated, lest one be guilty drawing hasty or unwarranted conclusions?! You already know it's impossible. You don't have to give it further consideration, scientific or otherwise.

I wrote, "Given the existence of Hell, it doesn't sound to me like one of God's attributes is benevolence - quite the contrary!" Joel replied:

You don't need to be a biblical scholar to have the notion that His judgements are based on reward and punishment.

In example: His punishment for atheists is that when they die... its the end of their existence. You see: the perfect self-fulfilling profecy.

Very funny! So, God effectively murders them, by killing their immortal soul, simply because they didn't believe in something for which they had no evidence -- simply because they refused to surrender their minds and their independent judgment. And you consider that an expression of benevolence?! I'd say it's an expression of the purest evil.

By the way, the existence of Hell --whatever it is-- is not a direct expression of His benevolence... but true benevolence includes a sense of justice. When a moral country --founded following Noahide law-- stablishes courts, the goal is not "sadism and cruelty", but the application of a sense of justice. Of course, His justice must be perfect.

Since the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, Hell as a place of everlasting torment has nothing in common with justice, as the founding fathers conceived it.

Referring to God, Joel wrote,

He cannot doubt; He cannot falter; He can't be perfect and imperfect at the same time. Thanks to Him, when dealing with Him, logic and reason always work. Challenging Him with honesty, you are challenging yourself. Making mockery of Him, you are mocking yourself.

There is nothing logical or reasonable about the idea of a pure spirit or pure consciousness creating everything in existence. As I pointed out in a previous post, before God created the universe, there would have been nothing in existence for him to be conscious of, in which case, God himself could not have existed, because he would then have been a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, which is a contradiction in terms.

I asked, somewhat rhetorically, "Why should I obey his commandments? For the sake of what end or goal?" Joel replied,

Indeed, related to the seven Noahide Laws, the only ones morally compelling for all mankind, those are the Big questions...

Answer #1: out of respect, gratitude, and love for Him. He created you.
Answer #1: your Father is asking you to do your best, why not trying to perform it?

Don't you mean out of fear of everlasting punishment? What possible respect, gratitude or love could I have for someone as sadistic as God apparently is? As far as trying to do my best, because God is asking me to, what does "best" mean in this context? Best in relation to what end or goal. Apparently, the goal is blind obedience to God's commandments. In other words, what I am asking is, why should I obey God's commandments in the first place? Your reply - because I should do my best to obey them - is not an answer, but an evasion of the question.

William, I would like to finish the morality discussion with you here.

Okay. Does that mean this is your last post on the subject?

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/31, 12:12am)

Post 162

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 3:37am

Finally, I could find the time to reply Branden�s �anti-creation� arguments backed by William Dwyer.

An initial clarification: I use �eternal� to mean �temporal infinity.� If William Dwyer or anybody else don�t like it, I suggest them to think about any alternative term with that exact meaning.

Now, for the points.

William Dwyer writes:

In his answer to Branden's refutation of the first-cause argument, Joel states:

Firstly, for comparison (and leaving apart Branden�s poor definition of the concept of �time�), let me show you examples where Branden put a cart of dogma before (and amid) the horses of his attempted deductive process: - �The universe is the total of that which exists�. [This was supposed to be part of the conclusion.]

No, it's a premise. Branden defines the universe as the totality of existence. The term "universe" like the adjective "universal" refers to everything -- in this case, everything that exists.

Then, by doing this, Branden restricts very much the scope for hypothesis formation. He is beginning by defining the universe as axiomatically eternal --as a necessary being. As a starting point, that�s utter dogmatism. This could be a good end of this discussion.

- �Existence --not "God"-- is the First Cause.� [But, why all existence, and not a certain type of Existence, must be the First Cause?]

He doesn't mean that all of existence is the first cause; only the fundamental constituents of existence out of which everything is formed and composed.

Then, he is saying from the beginning that a Creator can�t be the fundamental constituent of existence. Then, he declares his dogmatically atheist position.

(From a dogmatically atheist position, the universe --which then would be all existence-- would be a necessary being, the universe must be actually eternal --with temporal infinity.)

- �[Just as] the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole [...]�. [How does he know?]

Well, it can't apply to the universe as a whole, because there is nothing outside the universe to act as a cause. By definition, the universe is everything that exists; it is universal.

�By definition, the universe is everything that exists.� Wow: I see you registered into the Brandenian dogmatically atheist club.

- �[...] the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole.� [Not true. Quite a different thing is that time is not absolute.]

I don't think he's saying that time is absolute any more than he would say that motion is absolute, just that time depends on entities that move. [...]

Okay. Let�s assume Branden knew the fundamentals of relativity...

Time cannot apply to the universe as a whole, because time is a relational concept, and there is nothing outside the universe to form any such relation.

It is easy to interpret this as a diversionary comment.

Indeed, there are several estimations of the �age� of the universe. The most generally accepted are based on estimations of the Hubble constant, which is a parameter describing the expansion rate of the universe. The origin of the universe is then estimated by extrapolating to the past until the �volume� of the universe is zero.

Three independent estimates of the Hubble constant placed its value as (a) finite, and (b) circa 70 (km/s)/Mpc, with an estimated maximum error of less than 12%. So the age of the universe is approximated to between 12 and 15 billion years --which means that the universe has a "radius" of 12-15 billion light years.

- �The universe did not "begin"--it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being."� [Again, this was supposed to be part of the conclusion.]
Well, if nothing existed, there would be no time, and if there were no time, then the universe could not have come into existence at some point in time.

False: existence does not necessarily require time --only material existence. It is considered that at �time zero� --at the beginning of the the Plank era-- all was a speck of ultracondensed energy. Time did not exist and the universe existed as pure energy.

Nor could there have been anything to cause its emergence. Nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing.

My point is: the universe emerged from an "act" of creation from the Creator.

- �Existence exists; you cannot go outside it [...]� [Finally, this �confirms� that if I exist, my existing �I� is eternal...]

I don't follow you. How would this statement imply that if you exist, then you're eternal? All Branden is saying here is that there is nothing outside of existence -- nothing beyond it -- that existence is all that exists.

Let me explain you: Branden is telling us that existence can�t cease to exist. If that were true, how could my existence �go outside it� and cease of exist? Of course, there is contingent existence, and Branden is wrong.

Now I will point you out scientific and philosophical grounds for the denial that the universe has existed eternally, and in defense of a created universe.

For whatever it's worth, the original meaning of "eternal" was "out of time." It did not mean temporal infinity.

I use �eternal� this term to mean �temporal infinity.� If you don�t like it, I suggest you to think about any alternative term with that exact meaning.

A first experimental support for an origin of the universe were the findings of Hubble, theoretically formulated as the Big Bang theory.

I have no problem with the Big Bang; it's a well-established cosmological theory. But it wasn't that prior to the Big Bang nothing existed in the literal sense of "nothing." Something existed -- call it a "vacuum fluctuation" or whatever -- which gave rise to the very small amount of dense matter that produced the Big Bang.

(Taking into account your materialistic/atheist position, I find astounding that you don't find "problem" with the Big Bang. Know that alternative theories (accepting the Big Bang) speak about an immaterial "media".)

"Vacuum" is not the correct term. In where it is space, there is time. The current option I see as most reasonable is that at time zero existed a speck of ultradense energy.

A second �pro-creation� scientific argument that can be built consists in applying the Second Law of thermodynamics to cosmology.

Right. As I understand it, that's the entropy argument, according to which the universe is gradually losing energy and moving towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

The universe does not loose energy: it is increasing its total entropy. Besides, the universe is the best closed system I can imagine.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, at time zero the universe was in its maximum state of order --hence minimum entropy. Theories other than the Big Bang contain contradictions about entropy, and need �extra� elements to fit to observational data and be in accordance with to well-stablished Thermodynamics.

Now, my guess is that you prefer philosophical arguments. A fundamental philosophical question about the universe is if the universe is a necessary being, or a contingent being �namely, dependent on a necessary Being. (If there would be no necessary being, logically nothing would exist.) If the universe is a contingent being, it was created by a necessary Being.

So let�s quit from this last possibility, and go for the former one: that the universe is a necessary being.

If the universe is a necessary being, it must be an eternal being. If the universe is an eternal being, it is an actual infinite. If the universe is an actual infinite, the infinite actuality of the universe must include actual absurdity (in example: having the cake and eating it must be a fact). Here, I don�t buy that last, because reality is non-contradictory.

Well, would you then say that God is "an actual infinite [?]"

The central point of this discussion is: the Eternal Being is an actual immaterial infinite. That�s the key difference between the Creator and his creation. No contradiction there.

And if you would not, then why would say that a temporally infinite universe is contradictory?

Because the universe is an actual material being.

So the universe may be a potentially infinite but it is not actually infinite. So �voil��: the universe has an origin in time... thanks to the necessary Being.

And the necessary being is itself actually infinite?

Yes, He must be the One and only actual, immaterial, necessary, infinite Being.

- Bill

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 3/31, 8:39am)

Post 163

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 8:57am

Joel, you wrote to Bill (about Branden) ...

===============

Then, he is saying from the beginning that a Creator can�t be the fundamental constituent of existence. Then, he declares his dogmatically atheist position.

(From a dogmatically atheist position, the universe --which then would be all existence-- would be a necessary being, the universe must be actually eternal --with temporal infinity.)

===============

Joel, if I may be so bold: The official Objectivist position on God is that -- he, she, it -- is an arbitrary construct. A being without evidential instantiation in the known universe. The reason that Objectivists can't 'disprove' the existence of God (ie. prove a negative), is the same reason they can't disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy -- another arbitrary construct.

In this manner, both God and the Tooth Fairy -- when assumed to exist (without ANY material evidence) -- become discussion stoppers among rational debators. When pressed to define God, theists consistently backpedal. Aquinas admitted that nothing positive could be said of Him (nevermind the irony of Aquinas' assumption of knowledge of His 'gender' there!) -- but a long list of what God is NOT, could be created.

Objectivists have it in their heads that they are going to deal with perceivable existence, and what can be derived therefrom. If some mentionable -- like God or the Tooth Fairy -- cannot be derived from the perception of existence, then Objectivists won't invest mental or physical energy and time on it -- because THAT doesn't further their lives.

It's not 'dogmatic' to insist on only spending your time and energy on things that can be derived from the perception of existence. It's an act of Reason and self-love.

Ed

Post 164

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 9:47am

Sirs,

I reply the last William Dwyer's message. In this reply Ed may find my response to his last message questions --just in the final paragraphs.

On morality, William Dwyer said:

�[...] morality is a means to an end, not an end in itself.�

William, you are continuously confusing means, ends, and values.

To wit: ends and goals are defined with (a scale of) values, and values are defined with morality.

Einstein once said �You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.� Let me define it as clearly as I can:

1) Morality is the necessary universal referent defining good and evil.

2) The scale of values is a set of secondary referents every individual defines in basis of morality, and it is a requirement for the definition of goals and missions.

3) Every particular moral action is ultimately individual and is defined through a contextual process of �value selection.� Free will is the trigger impulsing the performance of moral (or immoral) action.

4) The means are contingent elements of moral action, and are permanently regulated by morality.

Related do what is a miracle, William said:

�If nature is a miracle, when what isn't?�

Nothing. That�s my definition of miracle. Reality is a wonderful miracle.

Brushing aside irrelevant references to Santa Claus, I respond this sentence from William Dwyer:

�if a book compiled from writings over 2,000 years old describes events that defy natural law, it is reasonable to view them as tales of myth and magic, not as plausible events that merit serious scientific scrutiny.�

Indeed, I also think the New Testament contains tales of myth. But I reached that opinion after some scrutiny.

About the attributes of the Creator, William Dwyer asserted:

�I'd say it [His punishment for atheists] is an expression of the purest evil.�

No: if a given atheist died in denial of the Creator, a logical consequence is the denial of the eternity of the human soul; the atheist then just gets it. The Creator just provides the atheist with his expectation.

The dying atheist performs the ultimate denial of the existence of the Creator; the Creator ultimately --in the same act of dying-- denies the existence of the atheist.

Ruminating about Hell, William Dwyer affirms:

�Hell as a place of everlasting torment has nothing in common with justice, as the founding fathers conceived it.�

The fact is: nobody --the Founding Fathers included -- knows what the hell the Hell is.

Talking about the Almighty, William Dwyer added:

�[...] before God created the universe, there would have been nothing in existence for him to be conscious of.�

Wrong. He could be conscious of Himself.

About the burden of morality, William Dwyer asked:

�In other words, what I am asking is, why should I obey God's commandments in the first place?�

I already exposed some of the reasons; I will rewrite it in different words:

Because, for every living moral being, to follow the moral rules of the Perfect Being must be the best way of life.

Some final points on the bogus issue of �what God looks like�.

All imagined divinities are ultimately �carved images�, are false gods; see this dialogue in the movie The Prince of Egypt (1998):

Moses: Who are you?
God: [loudly] I am that I am.
Moses: I don't understand...

In this respect, we all are Moses. We don't understand His fundamental �nature�, nor can correctly imagine Him. To think that we can know Him is to surrender to personal whim.

We can only try to define His necessary attributes through a deductive process based in the study of the universe. (In this post you can find one of my deductive processes leading me to the necessary existence of a Creator of the universe.)

My position is: according to the existence of reality, there must exist a an immaterial, infinite Being.

Pondering our positions, I think this is a good point to end this issue, agreeing we disagree.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 3/31, 10:09am)

Post 165

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:48am

Ed, Here I respond your interesting comments on the nature of morality.

Shermer is wrong to base morality on anyone's (or everyone's) emotional responses, though -- because emotions stem from held premises, and premises can, and often are, wrong.

Yes. We agree here. Morality is not based in emotions, but emotions stem from held "premises" --from the held values and morality.

Additionally, independently of emotions, the held morality can be wrong.

---

I'm basing it (morality) on what the members of our species requires for happy living. There is a formula -- one you can't sway too far from -- for human happiness.

I see two problems with your view.

A) The first can be unraveled departing from a question of hierarchy.

Certainly, "happy living" is a variant of one of the top human values, which is human life. "Happy living" is not exactly a basis of morality, but a vaue derived from the value of human life.

The hierarchical position of the value of human life is defined with morality. So morality is precondition to the valuing of human life.

Read this: animals do not value their life, but their genes dictate them to escape from a threat of death.

Additionally, if we assume that morality is based in living happy, there is one new problem with it: (moral) humans temporarily choose to leave the immediate happy living. So we would be freely rejecting (your alleged) basis of morality...

So I state that happy living cannot be the basis of the objective, universal, eternal --or timeless, if you prefer-- morality we agreed it exists.

B) The second is one related to the "nature" of morality, and logically links with objection A.

Let me ask you: what feature of reality defines what "our species requires" as the basis of morality? Do you think that are the genes?

I don't think that the genes can "store" anything as universal and timeless, as morality (we agreed it) is.

If not genes, what it is?

I think that morality is a non-physical reality. (And yes, I assume you won't agree with that.)

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 3/31, 11:56am)

Post 166

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 2:54pm

I wrote, "Branden defines the universe as the totality of existence. The term "universe" like the adjective "universal" refers to everything -- in this case, everything that exists." Joel replied,

Then, by doing this, Branden restricts very much the scope for hypothesis formation. He is beginning by defining the universe as axiomatically eternal --as a necessary being. As a starting point, that�s utter dogmatism. This could be a good end of this discussion.

No, he's simply defining the universe as everything that exists. Whether the universe is axiomatically eternal or a necessary being is a different issue and is not part of the definition itself.

�Existence --not 'God'-- is the First Cause.�
[But, why all existence, and not a certain type of Existence, must be the First Cause?]
He doesn't mean that all of existence is the first cause; only the fundamental constituents of existence out of which everything is formed and composed.
Then, he is saying from the beginning that a Creator can�t be the fundamental constituent of existence. Then, he declares his dogmatically atheist position.

Not at all. You're forgetting that the statement you've quoted comes as a conclusion from his having already refuted the argument for God as the first cause.

- �[Just as] the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole [...]�. [How does he know?]
Well, it can't apply to the universe as a whole, because there is nothing outside the universe to act as a cause. By definition, the universe is everything that exists; it is universal.
�By definition, the universe is everything that exists.� Wow: I see you registered into the Brandenian dogmatically atheist club.

If you don't like the term "universe" as a synonym for everything that exists, then just substitute the word "existence." What Branden is saying is that the concept of causality applies to events and entities within existence, but not to existence as a whole, so that if God exists, he is part of existence; if he does not exist, he cannot be a cause.

- �[...] the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole.� [Not true. Quite a different thing is that time is not absolute.]
I don't think he's saying that time is absolute any more than he would say that motion is absolute, just that time depends on entities that move. [...]
Okay. Let�s assume Branden knew the fundamentals of relativity...
Time cannot apply to the universe as a whole, because time is a relational concept, and there is nothing outside the universe to form any such relation.
It is easy to interpret this as a diversionary comment.

It's not a diversionary comment. The argument is straightforward: the concept of time doesn't apply to the universe as a whole, because time depends on motion, and the universe, as the totality of existence, cannot move relative to itself. Things within the universe can be said to move (relative to other things) - but not the universe as a whole.

Indeed, there are several estimations of the �age� of the universe. The most generally accepted are based on estimations of the Hubble constant, which is a parameter describing the expansion rate of the universe. The origin of the universe is then estimated by extrapolating to the past until the �volume� of the universe is zero.

Three independent estimates of the Hubble constant placed its value as (a) finite, and (b) circa 70 (km/s)/Mpc, with an estimated maximum error of less than 12%. So the age of the universe is approximated to between 12 and 15 billion years --which means that the universe has a "radius" of 12-15 billion light years.

Joel, what is the purpose of this information? How is it relevant to the point under discussion? I have stressed repeatedly throughout this dialogue that by "universe," Branden means existence as such, not the present form or state of existence since the Big Bang.

- �The universe did not "begin"--it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being."� [Again, this was supposed to be part of the conclusion.]
Well, if nothing existed, there would be no time, and if there were no time, then the universe could not have come into existence at some point in time.
False: existence does not necessarily require time --only material existence. It is considered that at �time zero� --at the beginning of the the Plank era-- all was a speck of ultracondensed energy. Time did not exist and the universe existed as pure energy.

First of all, I didn't say that existence required time; I said that time required existence! Secondly, I don't dispute any of the scientific information that you're citing here, and neither would Branden. So I don't know why you're raising these points. They have nothing to do with the point under discussion, which is an issue of metaphysics, not one of physics.

I wrote, "Nor could there have been anything to cause its emergence. Nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing." Joel replied,

My point is: the universe emerged from an "act" of creation from the Creator.

Yes, I did get that! :-) But, again, my point (and Branden's) is that if the creator exists, he is part of existence; if he does not exist, he cannot be a cause.

Moreover, and this is a point that I made in a previous post: before God created the universe, there would have been nothing in existence for him to be conscious of, in which case, God himself could not have existed, because he would then have been a consciousness conscious of nothing, which is a contradiction in terms. And not only that, but a consciousness requires a means of being conscious; it requires physical sense organs, a brain and nervous system, all of which presuppose a physical organism that is capable of surviving under certain material conditions of existence. So, if nothing existed, then no conscious being could have existed to perform an act of creation.

- �Existence exists; you cannot go outside it [...]� [Finally, this �confirms� that if I exist, my existing �I� is eternal...]
I don't follow you. How would this statement imply that if you exist, then you're eternal? All Branden is saying here is that there is nothing outside of existence or beyond it -- that existence is all that exists.
Let me explain you: Branden is telling us that existence can�t cease to exist. If that were true, how could my existence �go outside it� and cease of exist? Of course, there is contingent existence, and Branden is wrong.

Joel, if you cease to exist, you're not going "outside" of existence; you're going out of existence entirely. It is true that Branden would say that the primary constituents of existence cannot cease to exist, (which is not to say that a particular form of existence, such as yourself, cannot cease to exist), but that's not what he's saying here. He's simply saying that there is nothing beyond existence itself. Nor is he saying that there is no such thing as "contingent" existence, for he would certainly agree that the forms of existence are contingent - that they can come into and pass out of existence.

I wrote, "I have no problem with the Big Bang; it's a well-established cosmological theory. But it wasn't that prior to the Big Bang nothing existed in the literal sense of "nothing." Something existed -- call it a "vacuum fluctuation" or whatever -- which gave rise to the very small amount of dense matter that produced the Big Bang."

(Taking into account your materialistic/atheist position, I find astounding that you don't find "problem" with the Big Bang. Know that alternative theories (accepting the Big Bang) speak about an immaterial "media".)
Why? To say that the Big Bang caused the present state of the universe as we know it is not to say that the Big Bang was caused by God.
"Vacuum" is not the correct term. In where it is space, there is time. The current option I see as most reasonable is that at time zero existed a speck of ultradense energy.
"Vacuum fluctuation" was just a term that some scientists have used to describe whatever existed prior to the Big Bang. The correct terminology or precise nature of what existed is not of metaphysical importance here. What is important is only that something existed to generate the Big Bang.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, at time zero the universe was in its maximum state of order --hence minimum entropy.

Okay, so how does this prove the existence of a God? Are you saying that the universe had to be "ordered" by God - that it could not have ordered itself, because it is currently tending towards disorder? How does that follow? That we don't know what caused the speck of ultradense energy does not mean that God caused it. It just means that we don't know what caused it. Positing God as the cause, instead of simply saying that we don't know what caused it, is not scientific.

Now, my guess is that you prefer philosophical arguments. A fundamental philosophical question about the universe is if the universe is a necessary being, or a contingent being �namely, dependent on a necessary Being. (If there would be no necessary being, logically nothing would exist.) If the universe is a contingent being, it was created by a necessary Being.

So let�s quit from this last possibility, and go for the former one: that the universe is a necessary being.

If the universe is a necessary being, it must be an eternal being. If the universe is an eternal being, it is an actual infinite. But, as I pointed out If the universe is an actual infinite, the infinite actuality of the universe must include actual absurdity (in example: having the cake and eating it must be a fact). Here, I don�t buy that last, because reality is non-contradictory.

Right, but again, the concept of time does not apply to the universe as a whole, only to events and entities within the universe. So it makes no sense to talk about the universe existing for a period of time. We can talk about things in the universe existing for a period of time, only because they change relative to a unit of motion. For example, a person can be said to exist for a certain period of time - say 80 years - because we can observe him to live during a period in which there are 80 revolutions of the earth around the sun. But it makes no sense to talk about the age of the universe, if by "universe" we mean the fundamental constituents of existence, since it is impossible for the universe (in this sense of the term) to have a beginning or an end. In this respect, the universe is quite literally "out of" time, which is the original meaning of "e-ternal." Only things that have a beginning and an end can have a temporal duration.

I asked, "Well, would you then say that God is "an actual infinite [?]" Joel replied,

The central point of this discussion is: the Eternal Being is an actual immaterial infinite. That�s the key difference between the Creator and his creation. No contradiction there.

I don't follow you. If, as you say, it's inconceivable for a material universe to exist eternally, then why is it any less inconceivable for an immaterial God to exist eternally? If the one is contradictory, then why isn't the other? In fact, as I've already argued, if anything is absurd and contradictory, it is the idea that a pure spirit or a disembodied consciousness could even have existed, let alone performed an act of creation. A conscious creator presupposes a material world; a material world does not presuppose a conscious creator.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/31, 5:50pm)

Post 167

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 5:17pm

Time is a measurement of duration - so for time to exist, there must first be an existance which durates.. as existance is eternal, so then is time.

Post 168

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 6:55pm

Sorry it's taken so long to reply to the question of why raising On Intelligence - was on a week's sabbath, delivering a rendering which was sold [:-))] and taking a welcomed little vacation in the bargain.....

Finally, I don't think the existence of human volition can be demonstrated.

It was in regards to this that the book was raised, and Jenna's responses in 68 and 85 buttressed - the slow recognition of the structure of the neocortex and Mountcastle's proposal that the algorythm of the cortex must be expressed independently of any particular function or sense. This is to say that the way in which it is structured, is such that volition is a necessity of the predictability and pattern recognition involved - that "intelligence is measured by the capacity to remember and predict patterns in the world", that it is not behavior but prediction which "is the primary function of the neocortex, and the foundation of intelligence." But the ability to predict is not a robotic responding, and cannot be [ which is the problem with developing AI.] - and which is noted in the volition factor.

The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning

This is indeed an interesting book - and I concur that 800, while seems large, is just as a handbook... good choosing, Jenna.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 3/31, 7:00pm)

Post 169

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:13pm

Joel wrote,

Ruminating about Hell, William Dwyer affirms:

�Hell as a place of everlasting torment has nothing in common with justice, as the founding fathers conceived it.�

The fact is: nobody --the Founding Fathers included -- knows what the hell the Hell is.

LOL. Joel, are you putting me on?! Seriously, are you saying that, for all we know, Hell could be a tropical paradise?? It's a punishment of some kind (with all that "weeping and gnashing of teeth," right?); you've already acknowledged that; and it's eternal, which I'd say is cruel and unusual punishment if only in duration. I mean "forever" is an awfully long time. You'd think that those poor benighted souls would at least some get time off for good behavior. :-/

Also, have you ever asked yourself why a benevolent and omniscient being, like God, would want to create a race of intelligent creatures, whom he knew would disobey him and inevitably be sent to Hell where they would suffer for all eternity? Doesn't that strike you as a bit deranged? Why would an intelligent and benevolent (let alone omniscient) being even want to do something that bizarre and sadistic?!

Besides, how could an immortal, indestructible being like God, who has nothing to gain or lose by his actions, have any values or desires that needed to be fulfilled and for the sake of which he is motivated to choose between alternative courses of action? How could he have any goals that he recognized as worth pursuing? How could he regard anything as for or against him, as serving or threatening his welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating his interests? He could have no interests and no goals. The very idea of such a being making choices and of orchestrating the kind of morality play that is the stuff of religious myth and superstition is preposterous. Values, interests, ends and goals are biological phenomena that apply only to living organisms that have something to gain or lose by their actions. Teleological action is entirely inapplicable to an indestructible, invulnerable, non-biological entity such as God.

Talking about the Almighty, William Dwyer added:
�[...] before God created the universe, there would have been nothing in existence for him to be conscious of.�
Wrong. He could be conscious of Himself.

I can see that you haven't read your Rand: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." (AS, p. 1015) Which is to say that, in order for a consciousness to identify itself, it would first have to be conscious, which means that it would have to be conscious of something other than itself. Only then could it be conscious of itself.

To put it another way, consciousness must always have an object. So, to be conscious of one's consciousness is to be conscious of one's consciousness of...an object. There has to be something that one is conscious of in order for consciousness to exist. Then and only then can one be conscious of one's process of being conscious.

In short, since it is not logically possible for God to be conscious only of himself, it is not logically possible for him to exist all by himself and, therefore, to have created everything else in existence.

- Bill

Post 170

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 7:07pm

Joel,

==============
Read this: animals do not value their life, but their genes dictate them to escape from a threat of death.
==============

Animals do not consciously value their life, true, but they are not even, genuinely, conscious (your argument is a 'non sequitur'). Animals don't consciously value ANYTHING. But (read this:) they do suffer -- and they suffer through hardship -- and they do experience transient elation (ie. they 'enjoy' life-moments). Life is a 'good' for 'them.'

==============
Additionally, if we assume that morality is based in living happy, there is one new problem with it: (moral) humans temporarily choose to leave the immediate happy living. So we would be freely rejecting (your alleged) basis of morality...

So I state that happy living cannot be the basis of the objective, universal, eternal --or timeless, if you prefer-- morality we agreed it exists.
==============

Long answer:
"Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms, who ... proclaim that man needs no morality, ... They, who pose as scientists and claim that man is only an animal, do not grant him inclusion in the law of existence they have granted to the lowest of insects. They recognize that every living species has a way of survival demanded by its nature, they do not claim that a fish can live out of water or that a dog can live without its sense of smell--but man, they claim, the most complex of beings, man can survive in any way whatever, man has no identity, no nature, and there's no practical reason why he cannot live with his means of survival destroyed, with his mind throttled and placed at the disposal of any orders they might care to issue.

Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man's instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man that desires to be moral is the man who desires to live." -- Galt's speech

Short answer:
"[T]hey" includes God. And morality is a metaphysical necessity for the flourishing of man on Earth. For as long as men are men -- which, from my view, appears to be: for 'forever' -- a moral code 'demanded' by man's nature is, was, and always will be appropriate to man as a being living within existence.

==============
Let me ask you: what feature of reality defines what "our species requires" as the basis of morality? Do you think that are the genes?

I don't think that the genes can "store" anything as universal and timeless, as morality (we agreed it) is.

If not genes, what it is?
==============

One of the features of reality that defines what our species requires would be the metaphysical necessity of Reason. Man doesn't survive by sharp claw or fang.

And if you don't believe this metaphysical necessity of Reason, I encourage you to try fighting -- without 'mind-made' weapons -- with the lions of the Serengeti for meat, and let's see if you survive for even 3 days in 'nature').

Ed

Post 171

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 8:35pm

More to the central -- acknowledged as such, or not -- point (about how "humans temporarily choose to leave the immediate happy living") ...

=============
"... forgetting that the practical 'evil' was production, you believe that robbery is practical." --Galt's speech

"In popular usage, the word 'selfishness' is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratifications of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.' --VOS

"The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest ... not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level." --VOS

"Just as man is free to attempt to survive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment--so he is free to seek his happiness in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any mindless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences." -- VOS

"... only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral" --Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand

"'Man's survival qua man' means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan--in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice." --VOS
=============

Recap:
'Immediate happy living' (vulgar hedonism) is a straw man argument. Rand successfully rejected it. Folks who choose to leave the genuine 'immediate happy living' (which involves gratification delay) -- aren't, genuinely, Objectivist.

Whims don't count -- on the judgmental scales of morality.

Ed

Post 172

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 3:13am

Ed, in your last post, you said,

'Immediate happy living' (vulgar hedonism) is a straw man argument.

I don't see it as a straw man argument: to pursue 'immediate morality' is 100% morally correct. If you can abandon --even temporarily-- 'happy living', then 'happy living' cannot be your higher standard of moral life.

I will tell you: I think that the highest human moral standard is living the true life. Of course, this is 'immediate moral living' and timeless moral living' at the same time, for morality is an eternal and absolute immaterial reality.

The metaphysical reality of morality cannot be sourced from nature, which is material reality, and must be sourced from ideals, namely immaterial reality.

Related to the amoral --not immoral-- nature of animals, in post #170, Ed said:

"Animals do not consciously value their life, true, but they are not even, genuinely, conscious [...]"

We agree. But I don't know what you mean by "genuinely, conscious": animals have different levels of consciousness, from almost zero --in example, insects-- to an appreciable degree of consciousness without morality (e.g., elephants, dolphins, or chimpanzees.)

"Life is a 'good' for 'them' [animals.]"

Ed, the central question I was pointing to here --and I see we agree-- is that the act of valuing good and evil (more or less skillfully) is performed by you, a moral being, and it is a requirement for all humans, but never by any given animal.

Related to the properties of morality, Ed wrote:

And morality is a metaphysical necessity for the flourishing of man on Earth. For as long as men are men -- which, from my view, appears to be: for 'forever' -- a moral code 'demanded' by man's nature is, was, and always will be appropriate to man as a being living within existence.

We agree in this. But you actually did not address the poignant aspect of my question; I will rewrite it:

What is the origin of man's metaphysical necessity of morality? Ed, do you think we can find this origin in nature, namely, in human genes?

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/03, 4:01am)

Post 173

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 6:08am

Robert Malcom,

I think we all agree that (a certain type of) existence must be eternal; that certain existence is what I named the necessary Being --otherwise, by Occam's razor, without a necessary Being nothing would exist.

My position against Branden's one is: there is a necessary Being, and that Being must be immaterial and infinite.

For the interested, my current view of what reality is is close to the one of Amit Goswami, Igor Kononenko, or Scott Ryan.

"I hold that reality consists ultimately of a single Mind in which the entirety of the "physical" universe is a single coherent thought." [Scott Ryan, in his website.]

The "single Mind" depicted by Scott Ryan is what I understand as the Creator.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/03, 8:37am)

Post 174

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 8:42am

Here you have my reply to William Dwyer's message #166, related to my critique to the materialistic view of reality of Nathaniel Branden backed by William Dwyer.

During the discussion William made the following statement (all his statements are between quotation marks, " "):

"Branden defines the universe as the totality of existence."

Afterwards, I said:

Then, by doing this, Branden restricts very much the scope for hypothesis formation. He is beginning by defining the universe as axiomatically eternal --as a necessary being. As a starting point, that's utter dogmatism. This could be a good end of this discussion.

And William replied:

"No, he's simply defining the universe as everything that exists. Whether the universe is axiomatically eternal or a necessary being is a different issue and is not part of the definition itself."

My current reply:

If Branden says that only the universe exists, he implies that the universe or part of it is the necessary being, which is eternal --a necessary being is eternally required because otherwise, by Occam's razor, nothing would exist.

If Branded says that part of the materiality is the necessary being, then the necessary being is necessarily material. But that is not true both in scientific and philosophical terms:

In scientific terms, at the beginning of the universe 100% energy and zero matter existed. In philosophical terms, my deduction is here.

Additionally, scientific conjectures attribute the following features to the "pre-Big Bang medium": it is immaterial, eternal, and has the infinite potential to produce universes. Those features are totally compatible with the features of the Creator I detailed you: He must be the necessary Being, and an immaterial, actual Infinite.

William then states:

"You're forgetting that the statement you've quoted comes as a conclusion from his having already refuted the argument for God as the first cause."

Where, in the Branden's paragraphs you posted, he truly refuted an argument of a Creator as the first cause? maybe you mean here?:

Branden: "Nothing does not exist."

See that "nothing does not exist" is true only for material beings. My demonstration follows:

What about the existing no-things, namely, immaterial existence? I will put you an example:

Scientists know that pure energy is an existing no-thing.

Along his writing, Branden follows this false, materialist dogma: only materiality exists. Can't you see that, William?

"The argument is straightforward: the concept of time doesn't apply to the universe as a whole, because time depends on motion, and the universe, as the totality of existence, cannot move relative to itself."

The comment is not relevant, William. The relevant part is that the age of the universe has indeed been estimated (through calculations related to some of the oldest existing parts of the universe.)

"First of all, I didn't say that existence required time; I said that time required existence!"

Yes: time requires material existence, but not immaterial existence.

"So I don't know why you're raising these points. They have nothing to do with the point under discussion, which is an issue of metaphysics, not one of physics."

Wrong. The existence of the universe is an issue of physics, because physics involves the study of matter.

And I expose this information for two reasons:

A) Physics already informed us about something metaphysically relevant: about the very improbable eternal existence of the universe.

B) Physics and metaphysics merge at time zero --the 100% energy universe.

"[...] a consciousness requires a means of being conscious; it requires physical sense organs, a brain and nervous system, all of which presuppose a physical organism that is capable of surviving under certain material conditions of existence."

You make too hasty conclusions, William. You are strictly talking about the consciousness of material beings. Limited consciousness can only function through a specific structure. But the absolute consciousness of the Creator is not dependent on anything. The epistemological problem is that conscience cannot be proven by any logical means.

William then says:

"I asked, "Well, would you then say that God is "an actual infinite [?]" Joel replied,

The central point of this discussion is: the Eternal Being is an actual immaterial infinite. That's the key difference between the Creator and his creation. No contradiction there.

"I don't follow you. If, as you say, it's inconceivable for a material universe to exist eternally, then why is it any less inconceivable for an immaterial God to exist eternally? If the one is contradictory, then why isn't the other?"

William, the existence of a material universe existing eternally is logically impossible: actually existing material infinites are impossible.

Differently, "mathematical" infinites do exist --remember the symbol of infinite; but they are not actual infinites.

"A conscious creator presupposes a material world."

The reverse is logically demonstrable: a Creator is necessary for the existence of the material world.

"[...] a material world does not presuppose a conscious creator."

Just the reverse is true. All that exists has an explanation.

If you studied logic, remember the "argument from personal incredulity": I will reply any of your additional posts on the subject of the Big Bang and the Creator only if I see you considered my arguments carefully.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/03, 12:06pm)

Post 175

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 12:16pm

Here I reply post #169. (Again, William�s statements are between quotation marks.)

"Joel wrote,

Ruminating about Hell, William Dwyer affirms:

�Hell as a place of everlasting torment has nothing in common with justice, as the founding fathers conceived it.�

The fact is: nobody --the Founding Fathers included -- knows what the hell the Hell is.

"[...] you've already acknowledged that; and it's eternal, which I'd say is cruel and unusual punishment if only in duration."

I never said that souls dwell in Hell eternally. I repeat: nobody knows what the Hell is or how it operates.

"Also, have you ever asked yourself why a benevolent and omniscient being, like God, would want to create a race of intelligent creatures, whom he knew would disobey him and inevitably be sent to Hell where they would suffer for all eternity? Doesn't that strike you as a bit deranged? [...]"

Indeed, defending infantile gods as this straw one of yours would be a bit deranged.

Besides, as I understand it, "delivery" to Hell is not inevitable. Humans have free will.

"How could he have any goals [...]?"

He has no goals, nor interests: but he has the attribute of loving-kindness. That�s why he created the universe and mankind.

"How could He regard anything as for or against him?"

Well, apparently, you are against Him.

"Values, interests, ends and goals are biological phenomena that apply only to living organisms."

Remember that animals have no �values, interests, ends and goals.�

Talking about the Almighty, William Dwyer added:

�[...] before God created the universe, there would have been nothing in existence for him to be conscious of.�

Wrong. He could be conscious of Himself.

"I can see that you haven't read your Rand: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." (AS, p. 1015) [...] In short, since it is not logically possible for God to be conscious only of himself."

Rand is wrong: she assumes that all conscious beings are limited beings.

First, it logically follows that the Creator of all materiality cannot be part of that materiality.

Second, the Creator�s attributes are infinite in quantity and quality. The actual infinite Being must have actual infinite conscience --and infinite conscience must include conscience of Himself.

We cannot know *what* the Creator is, but we can know (by deduction [1]) *that the Creator is*, and define His necessary attributes --namely, the attributes He must possess for the existence of mankind to be factual.

Again, William, I will reply any of your additional posts on the subject of the Creator only if I see you considered my arguments carefully enough.

[1]: A deduction of the necessary actual existence of an eternal, immaterial, infinite Being, can be found in the last paragraphs of this post.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/03, 12:23pm)

Post 176

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 12:20pm

Scientists know that pure energy is an existing no-thing

W rong - matter is but concentrated energy, or rather, energy is nonconcentrated matter - neither of which is a 'no-thing' but very much existants...

Post 177

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 12:24pm

"energy is nonconcentrated matter"

It is true that matter, necessarily, is energy.

But pure energy theoretically can be zero matter, and exist. The pure energy of time zero was potential matter and potential photons.

Read George Gamov. At the moment, e.g., you can check this out.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/03, 12:55pm)

Post 178

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 3:42pm

Wouldn't energy at time zero just be potential energy? What's "pure" energy?

Post 179

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 5:13pm