About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been paying close attention to debates over the existence of God lately. I'm always trying to refine my arguments and was looking for advice. 

Argument from first cause suggests that nothing in our world exists without a cause, therefore existence itself needs a cause, and this cause is God.  If you apply the first cause argument to God and ask 'what caused God?', the answer you get from theists is that God exists outside of time in eternity and is not subject therefore to the laws governing our universe; God wasn't created. 

The atheist will usually say, 'well if God is uncreated or uncaused, why can't the univese be as well'?  Is this the best answer available?  I am wondering if anyone is aware of any other glaring fallacies or contradictions related to the idea of a God existing outside of space and time and is yet aware of what's going on on earth.  I feel like there has to be some additional ammunition to use in debate on this point. 


Post 1

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Still the best of the books covering the arguments and refutations of god existing is George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God..  it might be worth looking t hru and see if those arguments suffice for you..

Post 2

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"Jehovah, Jehovah!" 

Spinoza's idea of God is impersonal - defined as natura naturans - "nature naturing." This conception of God is pretty much harmless, and is the best one can really coherently posit with a God "outside" of time.

The real problem with God in this sense is the assumption of the primacy of consciousness.  People will happily accept the idea of a mind existing without a cause, but they have a hard time accepting existence without a mind to create it.

In any case, my favorite disproof of a certain God's existence was always to stomp up and down yelling "Jehovah, Jehovah!"  It may get you stoned to death, but you won't normally be struck by lightening.



Ted Keer


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In our recent debate, Leibniz argued that it's possible for nothing to have existed; therefore, there had to be an explanation for existence, which is God. I countered that it is not possible for nothing to have existed, because possibility and impossibility apply only to what already exists. The possible depends on the actual; therefore, existence could not not have existed. The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is invalid, to begin with, because explanations presuppose an already existing universe and can only be formulated in terms of what exists.

Not surprisingly, our pseudonymous Leibniz ("Dubya" for short) held the same view of possibility as the German philosopher himself, while nevertheless claiming that God exists outside of time and space as a necessary being from which all "contingent" forms of being -- i.e., material existents -- emanate. In claiming that God is a necessary being, Dubya was therefore implying that God could not not have existed. He was assigning to God the same status that Objectivists assign to existence itself. One then has to ask how God differs from existence, from the basic stuff of the universe? Well, of course, the answer is that God is a pure spirit or consciousness, whereas the basic stuff of existence is matter -- the primary constituents from which everything else is made.

So why couldn't a pure spirit exist as a necessary being that created the material constituents of the universe? I like Richard Dawkins answer, which is that since consciousness or spirit evolved from non-sentient organisms, it depends on a process of material evolution. Matter created consciousness; consciousness did not create matter. Moreover, as Rand points out, consciousness presupposes an external world; if nothing existed prior to consciousness, there could be no consciousness, because there would have been nothing to be conscious of. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms; before it could identify itself as consciousness, it would have to be conscious of something (other than itself).

Now Dubya is found of replying that a consciousness could be conscious of its own content (which is how he describes God) without being conscious of anything else. But the content had to come from observing something outside itself. We are able to introspect only because we have extrospected -- only because we have perceived a reality external to ourselves from which we obtain the material of introspection.

Moreover, a consciousness must have a material means of cognition -- a brain and physical sense organs -- without which it couldn't perceive reality or process sensory information. Consciousness is always conscious in a particular form. A pure, disembodied consciousness, would have no material form of awareness and could not therefore be conscious.

So, the primary existent(s) could not have been a disembodied consciousness; it had to be the material constituents out of which consciousness eventually evolved. The primary or necessary being is therefore material existence, not God.

Granted, if God is a pure spirit with no dimensions, then I suppose it would make sense to say that he doesn't exist in time and space, but that's because he doesn't exist at all!

That does not mean, however, that if something exists, it must exist in time and space. The universe exists, but it doesn't exist in time and space, because time and space are relational concepts, which apply to events and entities within the universe, not to the universe as a whole.

- Bill

Post 4

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms; before it could identify itself as consciousness, it would have to be conscious of something (other than itself).
Can you please expound on this, I don't quite grasp the reasoning. Thank you.
-Bill


Post 5

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 11:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Sure. Consciousness is the process of being aware of an object. Once an entity is aware of an object, it can then be aware of its process of being aware (of the object). But without the initial act of awareness, there is no process of awareness for an entity to be aware of, in which case, there is no consciousness. This is what Rand means when she says that 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.

- Bill

P.S. Mark, it occurred to me that this explanation might not have satisfied you. If it didn't, don't hesitate to say so, and I'll give it another go. Also, if you disagree with the view expressed here, don't hesitate to criticize it if you feel so inclined, and I'll see if I can answer the criticism.
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/25, 11:02pm)


Post 6

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

You can reject the "first cause" argument either by challenging the "first" or by challenging the "cause." With regard to the "first": You could opt for infinite regress. With regard to the "cause":  You could dispense with the causation that claims stuff from time 1 "creates" a bunch of stuff at time 2. Whilst there might be a relationship between the two times, to claim that the relationship is "creative" can be challenged.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 5/25, 5:25pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 10:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William Dwyer hit the nail on the head: "...  time and space are relational concepts, which apply to events and entities within the universe, not to the universe as a whole."

Time exists within the universe; the universe does not exist "within" time.

Time is a dimension, very much like space.  It is a way that we denote the difference between two events.  (The universe is not one of two or more events.)  In order for there to be time, there must exist two or more events.  Events take place within the universe.  Period.



 


Post 8

Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 9:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for your repsonses, everyone.  It never hurts to understand all angles of an argument.  I keep thinking that their might also be some easy contradictions to point out in the idea of an omnipotent God that knows in advance everything that's going to happen (since time is supposedly just an encapsulated dimension that he exists "outside of"), yet endowing people with free will.  Isn't that wanting to have free will and determinism at the same time?? 

Post 9

Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I keep thinking that their might also be some easy contradictions to point out in the idea of an omnipotent God that knows in advance everything that's going to happen (since time is supposedly just an encapsulated dimension that he exists "outside of"), yet endowing people with free will. Isn't that wanting to have free will and determinism at the same time??
Absolutely. But I think you misspoke, You meant to say an "omniscient" god that knows in advance everything that's going to happen, didn't you? "Omniscient"means all knowing; "omnipotent" means all powerful. Yes, insofar as Christianity believes in free will, there is a contradiction. If God knows everything that's going to happen, then whatever we do "had" to happen, in which case, there's no free will. On the other hand, if there's free will, then God cannot know what choices people are going to make, in which case, he's not omniscient.

There's also a contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. If God knows the future, then he can't change it, in which case, he's not omnipotent. If he can change it, then he doesn't know what's going to happen, in which case, he's not omniscient.

These contradictions are not resolved by claiming that God exists outside of time and space, whatever that's supposed to mean. It makes sense to say that the universe exists outside of time and space, because time and space are relational concepts that apply to events and entities within the universe, not to the universe as a whole, but God is not all there is (assuming that he exists); he is part of the universe, in which case, it would make no sense to say that he exists outside of time and space.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/26, 10:52pm)


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm going to take (at least, partial) issue with the official Objectivist position -- by which I mean the position espoused in the 60s by Nathaniel Branden and later by Leonard Peikoff et al, as well as my good friend, Bill Dwyer, in this thread.

The concepts of "inside" and "outside", as well as the concepts of "part" and "whole", are very important and useful ideas in discussing many subjects. I think, however, that they reach the limits of their usefulness when we try to resolve issues at the boundaries of existence, especially those relating to space, time, and entities.

In particular, it seems a bit of inescapable logic to me that if there is no "outside" to something, there can't be an "inside" either. Applying this to the God/universe controversy, it further seems that Objectivism's claim that "the universe is not in space and time, space and time are in the universe" may not be correct. That is, the claim that "space and time are in the universe" may just represent the other side of a false dichotomy.

Since there is no outside the universe for time and space to be -- so that the universe can be "contained" by them -- there is no inside the universe either. Space and time are contextually identifiable aspects of the relationships between specific things that exist.

But, of course, this means that things are not "in the universe," either! The universe is not a thing for them to be "in." The universe is not a vessel containing things, any more than time and space are vessels containing the universe!

Things are in various contextually identifiable relationships to other things, some of which include being contained by -- e.g., a bunch of golf balls contained by a bucket, our solar system being contained by the Milky Way Galaxy -- but these are all contextually specifiable "containers" with an "inside" and an "outside." Something the universe isn't.

REB

P.S. -- None of what I argue above in any way undercuts the Objectivist position on atheism. It just calls into question one particularly uncareful bit of argumentation.


Post 11

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 11:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
~ Have to agree with REB. However, I'd 1st stress that the asserter of (I don't see the actual 'argument', btw) "God exists outside of time" really has to 1st explain just what *they* mean by the phrase 'outside of time.'

~ Forget the amorphously Rorschach term 'God' for a moment. What would saying that a dog, car or carpet is 'existing'....'outside of time'? The question seems a bit on the order of the meaningfulness of asking "What color is the sound of a falling tree?" or "How high is the lowest point that exists?" --- You see the 'meaning' probs inherent here. It's as bad as Anselm's Argument in its hidden conflicting presumptions.

LLAP
J:D


Post 12

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 11:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Addendum:

       As well, the view that the universe (or even merely, 'time') as being a 'container' of some kind (past, present, future) itself is a problematic presumption.

LLAP
J:D


Post 13

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 1:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Roger,

I'm not sure I understand your objection. Nothing is outside the universe, correct? The universe is all there is. That doesn't mean that nothing is inside the universe -- i.e., that nothing can be considered a part of the universe, which is what "inside" means in this context. What it means to say that time is "in" the universe is just that time is a part of the universe or a relationship between objects within the universe. If "the universe" means the sum total of that which exists, then one can certainly say that particular things and their relationships exist "within" that total or as a part of that total.

- Bill

Post 14

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 11:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not sure I understand the objection either. It would be similar to saying that there has to be something else besides everything. But everthing means the total sum of all there is so there can't be something more beyond everything, otherwise we mischaracterized what we're talking about when we said "everything". So if the universe means everything that exists, there is nothing beyond that or outside of it.

Post 15

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Finite Yet Unbounded

Roger's subtle distinction is correct, although at first I had to think about it, since speaking of something being inside the universe seems okay. My immediate reaction had been to disagree. But consider the nature of entities. An entity, for example a red ball, is usually spoken of as having various qualities, its redness, roundness, mass, texture, etcetera. But the ball as an entity is not a container out of which one can remove all its qualities leaving an empty "substance" like a bucket with no water. Likewise, people sloppily speak of having bodies. But we don't have bodies, we are bodies. The universe is not some thing that contains galaxies and such, it is not a container at all, but is simply the sum of all existents which we perceive as existing in certain spatiotemporal relations. Newton and Descartes thought of space as something having absolute existence, and hence the idea of the aether was posited as a sort of invisible undetectable medium within which things exist. Most people still think this way, since it is intuitive on our scale of experience, and doesn't require the consideration of higher dimensional math and the idea of space as finite yet unbounded. But Einstein and Michelson and Morley and non-Euclidean mathematicians have shown that spacetime is relative - relational - and the there is no need to posit an aether or to ask where the universe "begins" or "ends."

I would refer those who are interested in how space can be finite yet unbounded to the modern expanded editions of Abbot's Flatland.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Ted, thank you. That was well said.

Here is what I was going to reply to Bill Dwyer earlier today, but lost when my ISP crashed:

"Inside" and "outside" are correlative concepts. There is no inside without an outside, and vice versa.

As was suggested by Ted's heading: either the universe is bounded (limited) or it is unbounded. If it is bounded, then it must have a boundary, within which some things exist, and outside of which other things exist. But the universe is, by definition, everything that exists, and nothing can exist outside of it. Therefore, it cannot be bounded, and thus not only is it not the kind of thing that has an "outside," outside of which things can exist, but it is not the kind of thing that has an "inside," inside of which things exist.

We (following Rand) think of the universe or existence as a "sum total", viz., the sum total of everything that exists. But a sum total is not an individual thing. It is a collective. It is understood in terms of the individual things of which it is the sum total. In other words, a "sum total" is (in a way) like time and space. It is relational. It does not exist apart from the individual things that exist, and it certainly therefore is not something that they are "inside." Thus, to say that individual things are parts of a "sum total" and are thus "inside" the totality of such things is misleading and metaphorical at best.

The original discussion by Nathaniel Branden in The Objectivist Newsletter was an attempt to refute the time (or space) as "container" view, and in stating his alternative view, Branden unfortunately used the same kind of verbiage ("time is in the universe"), thus implying that the universe was a container or some kind of thing within which other things exist. I am merely challenging this as the other side of a false dichotomy in cosmology or metaphysics. There are better ways to express the valid point that we all want to make about the relativity of space and time.

REB


Post 17

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 11:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think when people commonly refer to the Universe, they mean all galaxies, all stars, all planets, as in they commonly are referring to all celestial bodies and other cosmic phenomena. I don't think it's a big crime to refer to something as "in" the universe nor do I understand the container analogy. If we are in space, are we suggesting this implies "space" is a container? If so how do we refer to our position in space? If Earth is located between Mars and Jupiter, are not "within" these two planets? If we are not in space, where are we?

Perhaps incognito? Ok bad joke. :)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 12:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Roger, you wrote that "the universe is, by definition, everything that exists, and nothing can exist outside of it." That is exactly my view, so what we arguing about? Nothing exists outside the universe, or, if you wish, there is nothing outside the universe.

Then you say, "Therefore, it cannot be bounded, and thus not only is it not the kind of thing that has an 'outside,' outside of which things can exist but it is not the kind of thing that has an 'inside,' inside of which things exist." Of course, it doesn't have an outside in which things can exist, because if things could exist there, they'd be part of the universe, not outside of it. But you seem to be saying not just that nothing can exist outside the universe, but that there isn't any "outside" of the universe. But if there isn't, then how can you talk about it? How can you say, as you have, that "nothing can exist outside of it"? If you are correct, wouldn't that be a meaningless statement?

You say that "a sum total is not an individual thing. It is a collective. It is understood in terms of the individual things of which it is the sum total. In other words, a 'sum total' is (in a way) like time and space. It is relational. It does not exist apart from the individual things that exist, and it certainly therefore is not something that they are 'inside.' Thus, to say that individual things are parts of a 'sum total' and are thus 'inside' the totality of such things is misleading and metaphorical at best."

Really? You mean I can't say that you are "in" a crowd of people or that you are a "part" of the crowd, because a crowd is not an individual thing, but merely a collection of individuals? Come on! You can't be serious! :-)

In any case, what is important is what Branden meant by saying that "time is 'in' the universe; the universe is not 'in' time. His statement is perfectly clear within the context of his argument.

- Bill





Post 19

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Colloquialism, Clarity and Context

Surely you understand the difference between colloquial usage and careful speech, gentlemen. Of course in casual speech you can say such things as that you have a body, that you are in a crowd or that the man who just stepped on your toes in his hurry showed a selfish disregard. The needs of the conversation and the normal colloquial usage make your meaning clear. But an Objectivist speaking for full philosophical clarity, when he is purposefully seeking precision, and especially when he is dealing with unusual scales or phenomena can take the care to say that he is a body, that he is one of or is surrounded by a crowd, or that someone recklessly or thoughtlessly stepped on his toes. Of course we say such things as a man is in the trees, when if we were worried about literal meaning we really we should say he stands among the trees, and that only things such as sap are inside the trees. English always allows levels of precision, and philosophers should chose the highest level. Surely you don't argue that Rand was wrong to say that entities do not properly have qualities, but that they are there qualities? Roger did nothing more than offer a helpful clarification. There is a difference between doing so and nitpicking.

Ted Keer

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.