m273p15c wrote:... <quotes entire above post - snipped by moderator, grand_puba> ...
Again, why are you banging your head against mine? I act in hope. I hope that you and others may be saved, so you can go home to heaven. What hope do you have? Why do you struggle? Your answers are based in illusions through which an honest atheist would have seen long ago.
Numbers are representative of actual objects. You can definitely do math equations to infinity, however as numbers apply to reality, you can only have as many numbers as you have matter or objects to match. Just because you can do infinity on the abstract scale, does not mean that there is infinite objects inside of the universe. You are not making a good argument for god there.
Have you not heard of cause and effect? And how can you have a something before there is anything? Knowledge before there is anything to know? Creation before there is anything to use to create with? Super-consciousness before there is anything to be conscious of? All of these are attributes or feats which your god that cannot be proved or disproved claims to have all attributes which are impossible according to the laws of nature. Yet, to you that is just semantics that can overlooked. Let me give you something....
It is alot of data and I attempted to crunch it as best I could without loosing the total meaning. It requires a good deal of thought and I highly recommend the book that most of the information came from: Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand -by: Leonard Peikoff. I begin quoting that after the first few paragraphs.
Asking: Prove to me that god doesn't exist, is basically like asking: Prove to me that aliens don't exist or prove to me that Jupiterian Ligers don't exist. The burden of proof doesn't lie in the hands of the those who do not believe, rather it lies in the hands of those who who have everyone believe. Prove to me that object A doesn't exist, when object A cannot be observed, measured, used and has never been observed measured or used is ridiculous, because object A should have never been a conclusion to begin with. If we were to use such logic about everything in our lives, we would have quite the time DEFENDING reality due to the fact that any possible dream not existing in reality has to be proven to not exist rather than be proven that it DOES EXIST. That line of thinking is quite flawed and definitely backwards in its logic. What logical individuals forms a conclusion before linking data and then says to everyone else, "Well prove my conclusion wrong then, if you can't then its obvious I was right." No, its obvious that you care nothing about observation and fact finding as a method of knowledge, rather you are of the mindset that wishes determine truth and it is the responsibility of everyone else to prove your fairy tales wrong. Prove to me Rumpelstiltskin couldn't spin straw into gold. Prove to me that Cinderella didn't have a faerie godmother, prove to me that snow white wasn't resurrected by a prince, prove to me that Pinocchio didn't have no strings to hold him up to tie him down etc. I mean just because every other wooden puppet in the world is controlled by a puppet master, doesn't mean that this one wasn't, so I am going to believe such until you can offer me satisfying evidence to the contrary. Prove to me that invisible unicorns do not exist above the earths atmosphere because I am of the mindset that they do, until you can give me definitive evidence that invisible unicorns don't exist, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
What it boils down to, is that it is called: Using ones mind to determine facts about the world around them.
Some do it, others refuse, rather they accept facts about the world around them based on passion for such to be true rather than supporting evidence through fact finding and proofs. What is the point in attempting to disprove something that was never proven in the first place? Why even have scientist? What is the need for a freaking scientist if our dreams determine reality? I believe that the sun is actually the home of Zeus, he lives in the center, under all of the burning souls of the dead throughout earths history. When an individual dies, their spirit rises up like a vapor and heads straight for the sun and then fuses with the burning outer core to become trapped there for eternity. Ok, now prove me wrong. If you can't Obviously you don't know what you are talking about and that just further proves my argument to be correct because it can't be proven wrong. Oh, you say that the sun is a ball of burning gases creating the element known as plasma? No, sir, you are incorrect, that is just what the Zeus' evil archenemy Suez wants you to think by tricking your senses. Just because there is no evidence in science doesn't mean that it isn't true, you are just limiting yourself to worldly observations rather than using faith to guide you. Btw, this is the only correct doctrine. Any other faith is wrong....
Smart huh? ......
I could do this for days, about anything and everything and then say that everything really isn't anything, prove that it is and so on and so forth. This isn't the logic of the intelligent. What is the point of intelligence? How is it measured? Why do we need it if our dreams bring forth reality? Wouldn't that make every retarded individual just as intelligent as the greatest scientist, due to the fact that FACTS are merely subjective to whim? How can I prove to Crazy Joe that the spirits he hears are not real? How can I prove to loose screw Tim that there is no fountain of youth?
Show me there is no fountain of youth you naysayer! Prove there is no fountain of youth! Prove it! Show me where there is no fountain of youth! You can't!? Well, then I guess you were just OWNED by my argument...Child..
There are basics truths of reason, they are referred to by Ayn Rand as Axioms. The three axioms are as follows:
Existence, Consciousness and Identification
"Axioms are "perpetual self evidences" which basically means they need no proof due to the fact that they prove themselves. Here is how it works:
Existence exists- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: That something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness; a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as a consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two- existence and consciousness- are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that IT exists and that you KNOW it."
Here is where identity comes into play:
"A third and final basic axiom is implicit in the first two. It is the law of Identity: to be is to be something, to have a nature, to possess identity. A thing is itself; or in the traditional formula, A is A. The "identity" of an existent means that which it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics." "A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too"
"Ayn Rand offers a new formulation of this axiom: existence IS identity. She does not say "existence HAS identity" - which might suggest that identity is a feature separable from existence (as a coat of paint is separable from the house that has it) (you cant identify something which doesn't exist- LRR) The point is that to be IS to be something. Existence and identity are indivisible; either implies the other. If something EXISTS, then SOMETHING exists; and if there is a SOMETHING, then there is a something. The fundamental fact cannot be broken in two.
"existence" differentiates a thing from nothing, from the absence of the thing. This is the primary identification, on which all others depend; it is the recognition in conceptual terms that the thing IS. "Identity" indicates not that it IS, but that IT is. This differentiates one thing from another, which is a distinguishable step in cognition. The perspective here is not: it is (vs. it is not), but: it is this (vs. it is that). Thus the context and purpose of the two concepts differ, although the fact both concepts name is indivisible.
"Like existence and consciousness, identity is also a fundamental starting point of knowledge. Before one can ask What any existence is, it must be something, and one must know this. If not, then there is nothing to investigate- or to exist."
"Inherent in a man's grasp of any object is the recognition, in some form, that: there is something I am aware of. There is- existence; something- identify; I am aware of- consciousness. These three are the basic axiomatic concepts recognized by the philosophy of Objectivism."
"Witness the popular question "Who created the Universe?"
-which presupposes that the Universe is not eternal, but has a source beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will. It is useless to object that this question involves an infinite regress, even though it does (If a creator is required to explain existence, then a second creator is required to explain the first and so on). Typically, the believer will reply: "One can't ask for an explanation of God. He is an inherently necessary being. After all, one must start somewhere." Such a person does not contest the need of an irreducible starting point, as long as it is a form of consciousness; what he finds unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. Driven by the primacy of Consciousness ((as opposed to the primacy of existence-Existence exists and from existence comes consciousness- LRR)) a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world, which we KNOW to exist; he insists on jumping beyond the world to the unknowable, even though such a procedure explains nothing. The root of this mentality is not rational argument, but the influence of Christianity. In many respects, the West has not recovered from the middle ages."
The axioms stated above are implicit. What is meant by that is they to even argue them, they must be used.
"existence, consciousness, identity are presupposed by every statement and by every concept, including that of "disagreement." (They are presupposed even by invalid concepts such as ghost or analytic truth.) In the act of voicing objection, therefore, the objector has conceded the case. In any act of challenging or denying the three basic axioms, a man reaffirms them, no matter what the particular content of his challenge. The axioms are invulnerable."
The opponents of these axioms pose as defenders of truth, but it is only a pose. Their attack on the self evident amounts to the charge: "your belief in an idea doesn't necessarily make it true; you must prove it, because facts are what are independent of your beliefs (primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness) Every element of this charge relies on the very axioms that these people are questioning and supposedly setting aside. I quote Ayn Rand:
"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanketing out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the PROVED and UNPROVED.
When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence- when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of un-consciousness- he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both- he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.
When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn't choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he as accepted it by uttering that sentence, (HE-(existence), doesn't (consciousness) exist (identification)-LRR) that the only way to reject it is to shut ones mouth, expound no theories and die.
An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."
I promise I am getting to a point. Bear with all of this and really think about what it means:
"supernatural etymologically means that which is above or beyond nature. "Nature in turn denotes existence viewed from a certain perspective. Nature is existence regarded as a system of interconnected entities governed by law; it is the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What then is a "super nature"? It would have to be a form of existence beyond existence; a thing beyond entities; a something beyond identity.
The idea of the supernatural is an assault on everything man knows about reality. It is a contradiction of every essential of a rational metaphysics. It represents a rejection of the basic axioms of philosophy (or, in the case of primitive men, a failure to grasp them)
This can be illustrated in any reference to any version of idealism, But let us confine the discussion here to the popular notion of God.
Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.
Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to design is not chance. It is causality.
Is God omnipotent" Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.
Is God infinite? Infinite does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of NO specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of "infinity" denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition and subdivision. For Example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The ACTUAL is always finite.
Can God perform miracles? A "miracle" does not mean merely the unusual. If a woman gives birth to twins, that is unusual; if she were to give birth to elephants, that would be a miracle. A miracle is an action not possible to the entities involved by their nature; it would be a violation of identity.
Is God purely spiritual? "spiritual" means pertaining to consciousness, and consciousness is a faculty of certain living organisms, their faculty of perceiving that which exists. A consciousness transcending nature would be a faculty transcending organism and object. So far from being all-knowing, such a thing would have neither means nor content of perception; it would be non-conscious.
Every argument offered for the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy. At every point, the notion clashes with the facts of reality and with preconditions of thought.
The point is broader than religion. It is inherent in any advocacy of a transcendent dimension. Any attempt to defend or define the supernatural must necessarily collapse in fallacies. There is no logic that will lead one from the facts of this world to a realm contradicting them; there is no concept formed by observation of nature that will serve to characterize its antithesis. Inference from the natural can lead only to MORE OF THE NATURAL, i.e., to limited, finite entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. Such entities do not fulfill the requirements of "God" or even of "poltergeist." As far as reason and logic are concerned, existence exists, and ONLY existence exists.
If one is to postulate a supernatural realm, one must turn aside from reason, eschew proofs, dispense with definitions, and rely instead on faith. Such an approach shifts the discussion from metaphysics (the nature of the universe as a whole) to epistemology (the nature and means of human knowledge)
For now, I will sum up by saying: Objectivism advocates reason as man's only means of knowledge, and, therefore, it does not accept God or any variant of the supernatural. We are a-theist, as well as a-devilist, a-demonist, a-gremlinist. We reject every "spiritual" dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence. We reject idealism. To put the point positively: we accept reality and that's all"
Moving a tiny bit further to wrap this up:
"One might ask, how does one answer the opponent who says: You've demonstrated that I must accept your axioms if I am to be consistent. But that demonstration rests on your axioms, which I don't choose to accept. Tell me why I should. Why cant I contradict myself?"
"There is only one answer to this: stop the discussion. Axioms ARE self-evident; no argument can coerce a person who chooses to evade them. You can show a man that identity is inescapable, but only by first accepting the fact that A is A. You can show that existence is inescapable, but only by first accepting and referring to existence. You can show that consciousness is inescapable, but only by accepting and using your consciousness. Relying on these three axioms, you can establish their position as the foundation of all knowledge. But you cannot convince another person of this or anything until he accepts the axioms himself, on the basis of his own perception of reality. If he denies them, it is a mistake to argue about or even discuss the issue with him.
"No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality without your help, does not convince a person of the self evident, he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further."