Metaphysics

How do you know whether God subsumes any particulars? Perhaps theological theory is not falsifiable ala Popper, but this is only because the subject of Theology does not necessarily physically exist. If there was a God, we couldn't see him. Does this mean that God is impossible? Is that which we do not see non-existent? Does the concept "infinity" subsume any particulars? Reject theology on the basis of being contradictory if you like, but don't reject it on the assumption that there is no God (and therefore no particular to be subsumed by the "non-concept"). For I can reject your premiss the same way, with an assumption that there is a God.

Post 1

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 8:16am

Hello,

As I recall my objectivist theory, God does not exist as God has not been observed yet. If God were to be observed, then:

(1) He/she/it would exist
(2) He/she/it would be bound by the rules of reality

Religions demand that an individual relinquish control of his facilities to 'believe' that God exists without any proof. That is the beef that most Objectivists have

Do you assume God exists? What is your proof?

Didn't D. Adam's write something to the effect, "Proof denies faith, and God exists on faith, so if you proved God exists, then there would be no faith?"

Or are you in the school of Intelligent Design as well?

Kevin

Post 2

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 8:46am

Not sure what you guys are going on about. Not being directly observed is not, and has never been, a standard of truth.
The refutation of gods as proposed by Objectivists has mostly been metaphysical in nature.

Read O:PAR p30-32 for a refresher course.

Post 3

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 9:10am

Why Francois,

Thank you for that pointer, but alas, I have yet to read O:PAR at all. Mayhap's I'll have to purchase it later.

Perhaps you could summarize the refutation of God here.

Also, what then is a standard of truth, if not observation?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Kevin

Post 4

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 9:52am

The standard of truth is Reason. Reason includes sense perception, but also logic and concept-formation.

We have never seen an individual electron, or a black hole, but we know they exist. Observation is the basis for all our knowledge, but relying on perception alone is limited.

Post 5

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 9:56am

As for Objectivist atheology, it is mostly based on metaphysics, as mentioned.

For example, the notion of a disembodied consciousness is a contradiction of the primacy of existence. An undefined concept (supernatural entity) is a contradiction of the law of identity. The notion of a Creator of the universe is a contradiction of the axiom "existence exists". And so on.

Post 6

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:12pm

I simply choose to assume God exists, because I cannot falsify His/Her/etc's non-existence nor his existence. I do this simply based on the consequences of this belief, I admit that I do not and cannot prove this. I have heard this called religious zealotry as well as being totally against the true spirit of religion. Regarding knowledge itself I am the same way. I cannot prove or disprove the possibility of knowledge itself because I would have to assume the existence of knowledge in order to do so. I choose to assume that knowledge is possible because I like the consequences. Regarding your objectivism. If you are saying that anything that you have not perceived does not exist, you are taking a subjective view of metaphysics. In fact, why do you even have a section devoted to metaphysics on your site? Just to reject the possibility of any metaphysics? If you are saying that we should not believe in something unless it is verified I disagree. If you look at the history of science, you will see that the method used to prove a hypothesis true is a system of systematic falsification. For more on this read Karl Popper. You will probably find him very agreeable, since he believed that any theory that cannot be tested for validity (any theory of God, for example) is irrelevant and pointless. I disagree with him on this point. Regarding verification as a means to finding knowledge: how much proof do you require to say you have knowledge that something is true?

Post 7

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 3:11am

Mr. Schirmer, I don't think it makes sense to assume that $DEITY exists simply because its non-existence not been proven. For one thing, such a claim reverses the burden of proof, placing the load on the shoulders of the man who replies, "I don't believe you" to the man who says, "I have found God". The one making the claim has to furnish proof to back his claim; hence the burden of proof lies with the man who claims that $DEITY exists.

If I claimed that a winged pussycat visible only to me was flying about your head you would rightly ask me to prove it. Either that, or you'd just dismiss me as a nutter.

You claim to know that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of knowledge. But if the existence of knowledge is an unknown, then how do you know that you cannot prove or disprove its existence?

Ah well, at least you haven't dragged Schroedinger's Cat into the argument.

Post 8

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 7:10am

"I simply choose to assume God exists"

That's too bad. Reality doesn't care about your choices. As Matthew pointed out, you are also committing a logical fallacy.

"how much proof do you require to say you have knowledge that something is true?"

As much proof as is necessary to objectively prove or validate each of its parts. This, of course, depends on the subject.
In the case of the god-concept, we have more than adequate proof that it cannot exist, so I don't know why you're complaining.

Post 9

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:47pm

You all raise good points. I failed to state that, obviously any object of belief must be in accord with reason. I assume knowledge is possible, not that it is an unknown. I assume that I can know about the nature of knowledge because that is the only consistent assumption I can make. Still this does not prove that knowledge exists. I find this site interesting, although I have not had time to read much of it. The original reason I wrote on this site was because I mistakenly thought you said that the concept of God is not actually a concept because there is no particular known God it applies to. My ignorant comments were made almost in passing, as you can probably tell. If you are attacking the non-concept of God because it is a self-contradiction, I find this interesting. I have not read much of your site, and I should have read your position before criticizing it, for that I apologize. As far as my belief in DIETY goes. I am not assuming that it exists because its non-existence is unproved. I am simply saying that we all have to choose between one or the other, I choose God. You say there is no alternative here, it is impossible, once again, I will read on this. As far as the invisible flying cat goes, this is the result of confusion caused by me. Assuming you tell me that this winged cat is going to send me to hell or smote me in some similar manner, am I to believe this for no reason? Of course not. The first thing I would do is prove that this concept is absurd, irrational. You say that the idea of God is exactly that. One complaint I have is that I asked you how much proof do you require in order to believe something is true. The answer I received was essentially, "as much proof as is necessary." It is my fault I received such a vague answer. I meant to ask you if you take an inductive approach to knowledge, and if this is the case, how much information must you gather for a claim like "all swans are black" to be true. If you reject inductive reasoning, how do you plan to prove concepts like causation to be true? And how do you react to Kant's antimonies? Probably with disgust, and perhaps this is justified. I personally dislike them myself, yet I find them convincing. By the way, please do not mistake me for a skeptic, I have no special love for Hume or any of the conclusions he drew. What drew me to this sight was a rejection of environmentalist ethics that I thought was well put and quick to the point (unlike my banterings). Regarding the God issue, I will simply relinquish my stance. As soon as you tell me more about your epistemology and give me "as much proof as is necessary to objectively prove or validate each of its parts." Which I am sure you are more than capable of doing. Right?

Post 10

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 1:12pm

Of course, I am fully aware of the possibility that the theory is simply too long or complicated to be placed here. On top of that, it will probably take a great deal of time to explain to someone simple-minded and prone to fallacious thinking like me (yes, I know that I said it not you). If it is as I think, perhaps you can simply refer me to a website or book that can prove to me, or at least present a coherent theory of your metaphysics and epistemology (but please not Camus, and please don't use the word "reason" or "logic" in the same sentence as the name "Nietzsche.")

Post 11

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 1:39pm

Mr. Schirmer,

If you're really interested in the philosophical support for atheism, an often recommended book is one by George H. Smith: Atheism: The Case Against God

Post 12

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 2:26pm

Thank you. Actually, I just realized that I have read no books on atheism except for the writings of Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc. I found their writings unconvincing, however to be fair their main focus was not on refuting God. I will read this book you recommended, so that I may be able to understand your positions better. However I will be flying to and from California in the next two weeks, and I probably won't get a chance to acquire it or read it till then (nor would I want to, because God may get angry and smite my plane). Unfortunately, to save myself from further embarassment, I must refrain from responding to anymore debate for a couple of weeks. I am simply too busy and am perhaps in over my head. I feel very bad about this, and I apologize for hitting and running without giving you guys a chance to answer back (but of course I know this won't stop you from refuting my points and answering my inquiries). However I enjoy this and will be back to continue these discussions and others, and I think you will find me quite agreeable with you politically, as I am a libertarian, and you seem like sensible people in that field. It is always pleasing to engage in intelligent debate with someone, whether a consensus is reached or not.

Post 13

Friday, December 20, 2002 - 1:51pm

Mr. Schirmer:

I had many of the same thoughts you have expressed in this thread. I will back up the recommendation of George H. Smith's book. It settled many issues for me.

Post 14

Friday, December 20, 2002 - 2:24pm

From an Objectivist perspective, I also strongly recommend this web site :

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Thorn2.html

Post 15

Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:17am

"Reject theology on the basis of being contradictory if you like, but don't reject it on the assumption that there is no God."

I reject theology on the basis that the existence of god makes no sense to me at all.

For a start, the classic concept of god is a mess of contradictions - one example - how can god be both all-powerful and all-good? Either he permits the existence of leukemia and childrapists or he is unable to stop it. If such a god exists, I want nothing to do with him.

Secondly, I see no need for god. He is not needed to explain the workings of the universe subsequent to the big bang. His existence prior to the big bang is nonsensical as, by definition, everything that exists came into existence during the big bang, therefore nothing - that is, no matter or time (god included) existed prior to the big bang.

I could go on here. Suffice to say I have looked hard at the evidence for and against the existence of god, and the only rational position is that it is extremely unlikely.

Post 16

Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 2:16pm

Hello All,

I, too, have read and highly reccommend Smith's book The Case Against God. It takes the major arguments for God's existence across the centuries and picks them apart.

A logical proof of God's non-existence can be formed through metaphysics, but the basis of Objectivism's atheism is primarily epistemological. "Atheism" is the lack of a positive belief in God. Since the onus of proof lies with the theist, and there can be no perceptual evidence of God (by his very definition), one must base a belife in him on faith. Faith, of course, is not allowed in Oism.

Good discussion! Like the site so far.

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

Post 17

Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 12:11am

All the talk of proof and refuting the existence of some greater diety makes my head swim. I have not read Mr. Smith's book, but I will ask an even simpler question. Who was Jesus Christ? Was he just a man with such a wonderfully persuasive nature he convinced men across the continent to write of him well? A phenomenal magician? I believe it when I read that Abraham Lincoln was president. And even though Fox says otherwise on the conspiracy special, I believe it when I read that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. So why is it I can't believe countless recollections of a man performing miracles and preaching about god? Was he truly the most convincing cult leader in the history of the world? And what a loon to make up such a story and blend it with the history of the world so. Could somebody clear this up for me here, without asking me to read a book about proving the unproven belief in diety's that cannot be metaphysically substantiated.

Post 18

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 4:16am

Can you heal men with your hands? Do you know anyone who can? Do they commonly appear on news and morning shows, curing the sick and injured? Probably not. However, you know that space exists. You know that the moon exists. Just look up and you'll see the big bastard hanging in the sky. You know space shuttles exist. You know the hardware and computers exist to build them. You know Abraham Lincoln "Freed the slaves", right? If not, then our nation would be quite different today.
I'm not saying these things to be sarcastic and vindictive, but to prove a point. You ask, "why is it I can't believe countless recollections of a man performing miracles and preaching about god". As living beings, humans have physical senses to gather information from an outside source of stimulation, ie smell, taste, sight....Humans are also in possession of a mind, one that assimilates, processes and describes those sensations to whatever can be considered our "Self" within the mind...the "soul", the "id"...whatever you like to call it...(just don't call it God's) As the external events are being translated to us by our brain, humans require a volitional, independent thought, a very important one: "Is This Real?"
If a human doesn't grasp this thought, at any time he can be expected to jump from cliffs and run in front of cars because he believes imaginery things (demons, green mokeys, whatever) are chasing, and he thinks THEY ARE REAL.
Because of the very nature of the man, Jesus, it is impossible to grant him any more belief than any other ranting fool. Perhaps he preached about god, but so do a lot of people. Perhaps he performed sleight-of-hand to create the appearance of miracles, but so do a lot of people. There isn't much that's astonishing about the life of Christ, except that people believe to this day he was the bastard child of some far off, threatening father figure named God. I don't take the Nieztschean stance of simply making jokes at Jesus' expense and calling it proof. If a man named Jesus existed, he was just a man. That is reality. I know my great great grandparents existed, even though I never met them, because I am alive today, and I have observed how humans procreate and can see the results: me. But how do I know they didn't have superpowers? Because no one around me has superpowers. Perhaps if God wanted "His Son" to be more believed, he should have made him less showman and more philosopher.

Post 19

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 4:19am