Linz just informed me of your post and I would like to share the following notes with you.

1. I think I would agree with you more if instead of telling us what “Christians” think and believe, you told us what you think and believe. There is a reason that Europe was ravished by so many religious wars—those who call themselves Christians agree on precious little—and the tiniest things can set them off to killing each other. So I will take what you say to represent your position.

2. ON GOD IS THE CREATOR. I think you make a mistake, akin to Paley’s, when you analogize your God to a contractor. If God is like a contractor, then he works with pre-existing materials and hence does not create the world ex nihilo. Plato’s Demiurge is like a contractor, not the Christian God as thought by Catholicism.

3. By “universe” Christians mean that finite astronomical structure of expanding spacetime we inhabit . . .”
Your use of the word “finite” is question begging, as Aquinas knew. Call it “finite” begs the question, Who created it. In order not to beg the question, you have to assume (at least for the sake of argument) that the universe is infinite or eternal. But when you do that, you obviate the need for a creator. Maybe this is why guys like Descartes prefer to regard God as the preservers and sustainer of motion—remember, not law of inertia in Aristotle or Aquinas.

Also, I question spacetime. Not only did Aristotle and Aquinas not clump these two together, both denied the existence of space. In place (no pun intended) of space, they had place.

4. I think you interpretation of the omnipotence and omniscience of God to be more rational than the Christians I meet in my classrooms. They maintain, and here I will only deal with omnipotence, that God can create a rock he can’t life and he can life it—they explain that we’re just too stupid to understand how. As an atheist, I want to deal with the best, most rational, most logical defense of God that is out there. So kudos for you.

5. On God’s omnibenevolence. Since I’m after the most rational arguments for God, I must consider thinkers like Leibniz who thought he had to settle for the “best of all possible worlds” that God could create which is not necessarily one without God created evil. Now this may be the result of the fact that he thinks he has to have a good that is not only good but also must display his power in plenitude. So he is, so to speak, juggling two balls—while you only have one to recon with (like Lance Armstrong—sorry couldn’t resist). Bottom line, if Leibniz is right, then God does cause evil.

Fred

I like your post. Mysticism has endless contradictions. I still enjoy reminding myself of them.

Linz, thank you for accepting the apology.
************************************************

Spaceplayermusic.com

Just to emphasise (because I'm sure many people have brought this up already) - you cannot argue the validity of certain characteristics anyone assigns (yes, I said "assigns") to "God" without first establishing god's existence. You're working on the details of a theory you have yet to prove - which is much like the flat-earthists reducing the world governments to conspiratory agents (for the purpose of... they still have yet to figure that one out (though they're "pretty sure it's money")) because they're working off the assumption that the world is flat - for which they have no evidence.

Thank you, Claudia.

I don't know if a thread will be forthcoming about my "issue," because a. I don't know how to state it any clearer, and b. I suspect it's more a "personal" issue" at this point. I think I expect too much of SOLO for what it is, meaning my expectations may be a bit unrealistic (although with a tagline "nothing less than to change the world," maybe excusable. The only thing I can add, after some thought on it today, is that it's a bit too "magazine," or "department store," to do too much of one specific goal. I was thinking about the different "forums," like SOLO ARCHITECTURE, SOLO MUSIC, SOLO ECONOMICS, etc. They get little action, and overall there's very little activism involved, which is where I'm headed. I'm personally less about the "discussion" aspect, I think because I'm at a personal stage where I'm ready to do something, both on a personal and social scale. I expected SOLO to be a starting point for something that's more my own responsibility at this point.

************************************************

Spaceplayermusic.com

for being prepared to reflect and rethink. Good man.

As for the rest, I still have an issue right now with the concept of compatibility of an open forum with an organization that wants to change things. But this was not the way to air it (even if I've brought it up in the past under calmer circumstances.) However, I still think it's an important issue to work out, and I hope you take my argument for the constructive criticism it was meant to be.

I must admit, I don't undersand what your issue is here at all, but no doubt you'll write a thread about it when it's clear to you.

Take care for now.

I appreciate your gesture, though for me personally it wasn't necessary—I know how you get from time to time—and actually missed the mark.

Let's back up:

1) There are no taboos here.

2) Folk are free to criticise SOLO and/or me, just as I am free to respond.

3) If we're trying to change the culture of Objectivism to one where disagreement and open debate are accepted in the interests of reiterating/arriving at the truth, then we should accept them here.

4) Ditto changing the culture at large. One of our adversaries is Christianity. If a Christian wants to come here and argue for his faith, then I say, "Bring 'im on!"

5) Saying this is not engaging in a contradiction.

6) I am not a hypocrite, and object so strongly to being called one that anyone calling me one had better not come near me if he knows what's good for him. Unless he can show me he's right. Pointing out the infantile, premature crybaby "Waaaaa!" umbrage-taking rampant in the culture we want to change does not mean umbrage is never justified. Whoever said it did mean that? Not I. I wouldn't use the term "premature umbrage" if I didn't think there was such a thing as justified umbrage.

7) If we're not on the same page after that, I want to at least make it an honest disagreement.

Again, who said it wasn't? Disagree away. Just grant me the same courtesy, and refrain from calling me a hypocrite, and we'll be fine.

Re "name-calling sprees"—here is the current list of Linzisms, with explanations. If any one of them is unjust, let me know.

Claudia: "At no point did Linz even imply that a negative response was taboo! You're making up fictions....Joe, please consider the possibility that you are rationalising rather than being rational."

Claudia, I was not making up fictions, but I do confess do blowing it out of proportion. True, Linz did NOT impose a "taboo." But I had been in a bad mood for a few weeks, (though not menstrual), and was in a frame of mind to interpret any little thing as the worst case scenario. And in this case, I did so because I thought it "odd" to be asked by Linz, of all people, to "tone it down," so to speak. It's one thing to snap at him (sometimes rightfully so) when he goes off on his namecalling sprees. It's another thing to go off when he's calling for civility. It was hypocritical of me to do so, because I was, in effect, arguing for the right to behave like Linz when I've criticized him for it in the past. So I apologize for Linz for that. Linz, I'm sorry.

As for the rest, I still have an issue right now with the concept of compatibility of an open forum with an organization that wants to change things. But this was not the way to air it (even if I've brought it up in the past under calmer circumstances.) However, I still think it's an important issue to work out, and I hope you take my argument for the constructive criticism it was meant to be. If we're not on the same page after that, I want to at least make it an honest disagreement.

(Incidentally, I was amused to learn, via the Colbert Report, that Bill O'Reilly was raising a similar issue regarding posts on a liberal "open forum" website, Daily Kos, regarding nazi material, holding the site owner responsible for all content. To your credit, Linz, you did NOT allow such material, via Orion Reasoner, so I should have tempered myself.)

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Leonid

When you say that you define God. However God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, He possess infinite properties and therefore indefinable.But to be is to be something, indefined entity is contradiction in terms. If you define God you reduce Him to the status of mere entity, one among many which one can study. Such a God can represent base for science, but he doesn't require Faith, religion. So this God would be useless to any believer. That why Pasquale proclaimed: No God of Descartes but God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

God created Universe.
Universe or rather existence is every thing which exists. To create it you have to transcend existence, not to be part of it. If God is not part of existence it has only one meaning: He doesn't exist. Therefore the very idea that God created Universe negates the concept of God.Besides,this idea represents logical fallacy of infinite regress.
God is pure spirit, cosciousness. But consciousness cannot precede existence.To be conscious one have to be conscious of something which exists. Consciousness which conscious only of itself is worse than contradiction in terms.

The whole concept of God is a huge logical fallacy because it is arbitrary concept, not supported by any factual evidence.And if one can find factual evidence for God's existence it will immediately cancel his divine stature by turning him to the object of observation.
"God is not X, God is Y"
That statement begs another question: How do you know that?
Since God is indefinable unobservable Being and cannot be studied by rational means it left to us only 3 epistemological tools:Innate knowledge, revelations,Holy scriptures. All three are invalid since they represent fallacy of circular argument-they prove the premiss by using this very premiss as a proof.

This has gone from the petty to the unbelievable.

There is no contradiction. Linz has created an open forum where people can debate openly and take the results on the chin. You're attacking Linz by constructing an elaborately syllogistic argument to paint him as a hypocrite. Stop it.

You had the right to voice your snipe (thanks to the open forum):

Yeah, just remember this line the next time you see "Hseikovian" and "treason" on SOLO while ex-objectivists who preach Christianity/Not Christianity are coddled.

Father Billygoat was hardly coddled - he took a hammering and was a lone defender.

Then you come out with this:

"Linz reserves the right to express his opinion on any topic same as everyone else."
Before this, you wrote:
[quoting Linz] "Those who don't like certain topics should simply avoid threads that discuss those subjects. Save themselves and me all that grief."
So no topic is taboo, but a negative response is? Unless it's Linz?

At no point did Linz even imply that a negative response was taboo! You're making up fictions.

Basically, Linz commended everyone for the spirit of goodwill in conducting the debate and then you pissed all over it. Linz told you to get a grip. You come back and label him a contrary hypocrite and now it's snowballed into a major deconstruction of the whole Solo Credo and objectives. WTF?!

Joe, please consider the possibility that you are rationalising rather than being rational.

So this is how you respond to constructive criticism, with "premature umbrage?" So much for honest debate.

If that's the best you can do, Linz, then you make it easy for me. You set up a strawman; I'm not condemning honest debate, of which most of your rants aren't. Certainly your interruption on the "jazz thread" I mentioned was not honest debate. And I stand by my theory. The most recent Neil/PARC post bears me out: You've got a dedicated member angry at the persistance of these posts, which was followed by the rebuttal that it's an open forum for debate. And it will continue.

No, I did not take your umbrage quote out of context. And you have nerve to talk, as you reserve the right to insult everyone and anyone with whatever colorful epitaph you can think of. You really do deserve to be called a hypocrite.

You can assert all you want, your actions speak for themselves. You can quote the damn credo to kingdom come. Methinks the man doth protest too much. And you just get louder as you take more umbrage.

I'm done talking to you. Take care.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

None of this justifies your calling me a hypocrite. Or misinterpreting my point re "umbrage." Premature, chronic umbrage-taking as a substitute for argument, if you read what I actually wrote rather than using the issue to try to point-score yet again. Fact is, I am not a hypocrite and I despise hypocrisy, as a reading of the Credo will show. And if you can't own that of late you've reverted to being a snide prick then you're still a lesser person than the one you were blooming into.

There's no either-or such as you presume to insist. The open debate—more importantly, the openness to debate that still eludes some of your snotty latter-day Hsiekovian friends—is part of changing the world, and assuredly part of changing the culture of Objectivism.

Now I must go to the studio. Got some world-changin' to do.

Linz

Bring on the adults? Aw, Linz, not taking umbrage, are we? Don't violate your own “Linz Sinz..” ( Actually, I have no problem with your being offended if you think you’ve been accused unfairly, it’s understandable. But you write: “Call them evil, and they repair to their hurt feelings. End of discussion. End of the challenge to evil.” Then you take offense to being guilty of a double standard. It’s another double standard. Judge and prepare to be judged.)

But I'll stop "sniping," and explain my rationale, because I take this seriously. It's not about your musical opinions. I think I see a bigger issue, a contradiction in SOLO that may lead to some double standards.

SOLO has two stated purposes that seem to be in conflict. One is to be a place for "homeless" Objectivists, who don't fit the TOC or ARI mold. The other is to be a force that seeks nothing less than to "change the world." I think these two purposes are in opposition to each other. Homeless objectivists really only says what some people are not. It doesn't define who or what they are for, which could be as various as the number of "homeless."
Trying to "change" the world with such a "motley crew" is simply not realistic. It's the same problem in The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon.

I also though about this because I was one who posted on old SOLO stuff contrary to Objectivism, sincere as it was. But I posted because it was a home for "homeless Objectivists." It could be argued that SOLO "changed" me, and can change others who come here to debate (for all I know, that could be the motive behind the invitation to Bill's post), but I don't believe that. For me, it was the "accident" of PARC (not that the book was an accident, but its appearance in my reading) that lead me to reconsider. I had no intention to change MY mind before that, rather, I was on a crusade to change the minds of others. What a difference a book makes. To its credit, SOLO did host James, but it needs to be remembered the initial hostility towards the book by the leader of SOLO as well. I wouldn't say SOLO changed things via PARC, but that PARC changed SOLO.

So then I gravitated towards SOLO for its idea of change. But now I find myself on the opposite side of where I stood before, reading posts and claims similar to my old stance re some ideas. Ironic, yes, but frustrating. One the one hand, I have to remind myself of that, on the other hand, I'm still concerned about the influences going into any vehicle for change that I'm to be a part of.

This lead me to my theory that their is a contradiction in SOLO's intended purposes. That's why I see a double standard in your railing against your "pet peeves," and your call for those who disagree with a thread to not participate. (If I needed only one example, it would be your interruption on old SOLO of a Jazz threat where you put down people for listening to jazz, and not discussing Rachmaninoff or whatever. When called on it, you asserted that it's your list and you can do whatever you want. Now, you tell people on this thread not to partake if they don't like it. Forget the particular topics involved in the threads, how is that, in principle, NOT a double standard?). If it's not a double standard on purpose, it's by the nature of SOLO's conflicting missions. This is not to be snide; I simply see the double standard in your behavior. It speaks for itself. If it’s not intentional, and I’m extending the benefit of the doubt here, then I think my theory explains the “discrepancy.” It's either an open forum where all topics are welcome (and all responses, including the ravings of its owner), or it's a group with a defined mission that excludes an open forum, the way Objectivism is not compatible with libertarianism, which is an "open forum" sort of party.

How do we resolve it? In the end, I think it comes down to what Rand wrote in “What Can One Do?”: “Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined, (and, usually, CONTRADICTORY [emphasis mine]), political goals. …the only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree. In such cases, no one may attempt to ascribe his views to the entire membership, or to use the group to serve some hidden ideological purpose (and this has to be watched very, very, carefully.)

I think this applies to “group movements” like SOLO as well. Especially the last line.
Anyone who decides to participate in your call for “change the world” should ask themselves about this seeming contradiction. How does one balance an “open forum” with a cultural movement with specific goals? Is it possible, or is it one or the other?
For what it’s worth, I think it’s either-or. An open forum IS a form of ad hoc committee, it’s single purpose being just that, an place where people can come to debate, dissuade, present a viewpoint, etc. It can be a meeting place for likeminded people to get together and go somewhere else to form said ad hoc committe, but that committee can't be the open forum itself. That, by its nature, does not work towards having a group of conflicting ideologies work together to change a culture. It's not a melting pot, but a boiler plate. To be told a forum is open, yet to berate those who don't fit into the "curriculum" of the group's goals is bound to cause trouble, and umbrage. It's not fair to those who see it as a vehicle for change to be expected to interract with people who would promote antithetical values; it's seen as an obstacle to the ad hoc committe's goal. It's not fair, either, to people like Bill or Nick Otani who come here with the expectation of an open forum. At the least, it's confusing, at its worst, it's a trap.

It puts the babble in Babel.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

I have no double standard for you to be tired of. If you still resent me for stating—on my own turf, Galt forbid!— that esthetic crap is esthetic crap, that's your problem. I thought you'd gotten over it. Riggenbach/Sibelius revisited?

Bring on some adults I say!!!

Linz

Whatever, Linz, I'm tired of your double standard. Nothing mentstrual about that.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

... there were lots of headbangers and metalheads here already, being engaged, if not converted. Fortunately they're not all permanently menstrual.

By THAT logic, headbangers and metalheads are the amongst those we need to engage, since caterwauling is going to destroy the free world and Linz won't be able to listen to his precious opera. WAAAH!!!!!

"I'll walk with God," indeed.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

In the real world, Christians are among those we need to engage, in this contest of ideas. Apparently the need is especially urgent in the case of Christians, since they're going to establish a theocracy in your country next Tuesday and you Americans will find your access to SOLO blocked. Save SOLO! Convert Father Bill!

Why don't I avoid it? In all seriousness, I was under the impression that SOLO had a purpose. I don't see how inviting those who are hostile to Objectivism to insult the intelligence of Objectivists via Christianity is furthering that goal. It's the same problem Rand had with the Libertarian Party, and the same problem Rand had answering questions from rude Donahue guests.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Well then Joe, just for you, let me put it in a "should"-free way:

If you don't think a Christian should be invited to make his case, and it upsets you, why not simply avoid that thread?

You're at perfect liberty to upset Father Bill, though he doesn't seem half as touchy as you.

I'm not upset by "Bush's cock-sucker." Gave me a huge laugh actually. Casey having a vent. No law against that here.

Rap-and-crap-lovers subjected to "all sorts of vitriol"? Waaaaa. Waaaaa. Them's the breaks, I guess. Ain't life a bitch?! Ain't Linz an even bigger bitch?!

I didn't say shut it down, I questioned the invitation to begin with. And I don't apologize for that.

But since it is an open forum, and because of your own past history, I can't understand why you would suddenly advise against negative responses to articles like Bill's.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

I didn't say shut it down, I questioned the invitation to begin with. And I don't apologize for that.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

"Since when did 'should' mean 'must'"?
SHOULD:
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

Close enough.

Petty...well, I think it rather odd that you APPLAUD others when they rip certain positions to shreds and question the integrity of those posters, yet when people did it to Bill this time re his religious arguments, you all of a sudden turned into Barbara Branden. But what really bugs me is the relation of Bill's topic to your stance against Peikoff, et. all re theocracy. People here who listen to rock music and substandard opera singers are subjected to all sorts of vitriol, yet we must not upset "Father Bill" or appear to be a "closed forum," since SOLO is a forum for all viewpoints... you get upset with the accusation of being a republican cocksucker, and you make assertions to the contrary, but if you think that Hsiekovians are traitorous, you're starting to look like you're offering succour to the conservative religious right.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Since when did "should" mean "must"?

You'd been whining about something or other being discussed—wanted me to close it down—I suggested you and other wannabe censors just avoid those threads. Where's the contradiction?

Now quit being a petty jerk.

for you to explain your contradiction:

"Butting in with my objections is not the same as declaring a topic taboo. How many times must I explain this?"
"Linz reserves the right to express his opinion on any topic same as everyone else."
Before this, you wrote:
Those who don't like certain topics should simply avoid threads that discuss those subjects. Save themselves and me all that grief.
So no topic is taboo, but a negative response is? Unless it's Linz?

dup

Reed-
Interesting question. A deistic notion of a deity - a creator of the universe who set up natural laws and let it go - is an arbitrary idea akin to 'invisible spiders on Mars'. Bill's notion goes further to include contradictions such as omniscience with free will, and omnipotence with omnibenevolence and the reality of evil, so corresponds even to 'invisible green spiders on Mars'.

Hi, Linz.

Still, I thank all comers for the spirit in which, for the most part, they've conducted this debate.

And thanks once again for giving me a soapbox. You have been a gracious host. I enjoyed for the most part the discussion we had here. If I hadn't such a load of business here at my company to clear out (two patent applications plus a third in the process, a roll-up of our little industry, and funding a new investment firm to run it all), I would have probably had more patience to explain how wayward the path is your team is following.

But then again, as James suspects, there are of course far superior apologists for Christianity than me -- Craig, Neuhaus, Platinga, Ratzinger, Swinburne, and Wojtyla, to name but a few -- who are readily accessible via the internet. So those who want to understand what that Friday afternoon really means to Christians don't lack for resources to find out.

Hi, Reed.

I was surprised by your position on evolution, I guess you have some good reasons for it.

I'm not particularly interested at this time in starting a new thread to discuss evolution, so let me briefly respond to you here.

If by evolution you mean common descent with modification over the generations, the paleontological evidence is convincing. It doesn't appear as though there was more than one origin of life, or at least one that survived, and living organism clearly changed over time, at least during the past 600 million years.

As to how life originated on this planet and what the mechanism for its modification over time is, science does not have any compelling explanations for that at this time. I don't think science will ever answer the first question, because life is a principle of an organism's form (hylomorphically speaking) and so beyond the ken of science. I think science can address the issue of the mechanism of modification, although it hasn't provided a definitive answer yet. At best Darwinism (non-teleological natural selection) scales up a process known only to have some limited effect within a species, and there is no clear evidence that that process is scalable as a mechanism for speciation.

So, that's what I think about evolution in a nutshell.

Regards, Bill

P.S. As to all you other jokers who have been flummoxed by my brilliance and too often reduced to contradiction and incoherence in response, I regret not giving you further opportunity to clean up your arguments to make a respectable case for your atheism. However, my final replies in this thread to Linz and Reed are a courtesy they merit, and not an invitation to carry on this debate. So bone up on Swinburne, Ratzinger, et al. and enlighten yourselves on your own. It's your job to educate yourselves, not mine.

Treason is what Hsiekovians advocate when they propose blanket voting for Dem-scum. I've explained my reasons for this view. Disagree with me if you like, but don't think the old-time sniping against me to which you've reverted is going to deter me from expressing my candid opinion on my own fucking forum.

Linz

"Still, I thank all comers for the spirit in which, for the most part, they've conducted this debate."

Yeah, just remember this line the next time you see "Hseikovian" and "treason" on SOLO while ex-objectivists who preach Christianity/Not Christianity are coddled.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

... i.e., one allegedly NOT the "consciousness" OF somebody or a "consciousness" that is NOT aware OF existence, yes, is just like the "invisible and green" thing, Reed. It cannot be.

Everyone -
In a different thread "invisible green spiders on mars" was presented as an example of an arbitrary statement and compared to the assertion that god exists. Now a thing can not be invisible and green at the same time so "invisible green spiders" are impossible. If the example was "invisible spiders on mars" then it would not be impossible, just extremely unlikely and a crazy belief without any evidence.

Do objectivists here consider the god Bill presented impossible like the "invisible green spiders on mars" or arbitrary like "invisible spiders on mars"?

Bill -
Now that you have finished with this topic...
I was surprised by your position on evolution, I guess you have some good reasons for it. If you are not too busy aiding with the establishment of the coming theocracy would you be interested in sharing your reasoning in the evolution vs creation topic? So far I've failed to get much participation discussing evolution, so the topic hasn't really been done justice.

Cheers,

Reed

I'd bet that there are many in the Christian camp who can do a lot better than this, Linz.

I've been surprised at Bill's misunderstandings of the Objectivist position. I noted in one recent post he said that if we had been able to accept the logical possibility of God we might have been able to move on to empirical considerations. Oooops. Father Bill, if you're reading this, I fear what you moved to Christianity from was not Objectivism but a rationalistic misunderstanding thereof. Still, I thank all comers for the spirit in which, for the most part, they've conducted this debate.

This has become risible.

Causality comes in one "flavor" -- namely, the Law of Identity. Just as entities, and the attributes of those entities, are what they are, so the actions of those entities are the result of the nature of things that are acting. Absent the context of action, "causality" has no meaning. But it is not limited to "physical" things.

Consciousness, like any other action, has a cause -- and it operates causally. In order to see, I must look. In order to know, I must learn. If the doctor gives me drugs, I go unconscious. When I am fully awake, I think better.

Causality applies to ALL actions, including consciousness.

Consciousness is an activity, the act of being aware. Absent the context of a conscious entity, aware OF something other than itself, "consciousness" has no meaning.

"Pure" consciousness is literally a meaningless contradiction in terms.

In none of this is any sort of "materialism" even implied, unless by that Bill means any notion that contradicts very the "possibility" for which he argues. Bill carves the world up into his dualism as he walks in the door -- and insists that anything else is "materialism." On top of all this, he consistently just ignores the inconvenient -- things like Rand's actual arguments.

I'd bet that there are many in the Christian camp who can do a lot better than this, Linz.

Kind of sad. Anymore, engagements with Christian apologists turn into Black Knight encounters.

Hi, Greg.

I understand that you are not happy that I keep pointing out the implicit (indeed, often explicit) materialist premises that Objectivists must have to justify the denial of God’s existence. As I said, it’s not my fault that Objectivism lacks an ontology to support as true both its claims of physical-mental dualism and metaphysical atheism, and so leaves many Objectivists grasping at materialist straws to (hopelessly) reconcile the two claims. You say that the lack of ontology is deliberate to avoid cosmological commitments that are properly empirical matters. Of course, ontology does not entail a cosmology. So your answer is unpersuasive, especially when Rand and Peikoff have both made very clear etiological declarations about the universe, which are unsupported assertions absent any ontological argument.

You also complain that I have failed to understand that regarding the existence of God, your arguments were epistemological not metaphysical. Of course, what is real determines what can be known, and the issue at hand was: Is it logically possible for God to be real? You could have answered that question with a simple and clear “yes” if you wanted to move onto epistemological issues. I agree that once the metaphysical possibility of God is established, then the discussion moves onto whether through reason we can obtain sufficient knowledge about the universe to determine the truth of that possibility. But you did not do that, Greg. You left the metaphysical question open, and so I proceeded to argue it. Now you huff (rather churlishly I might say) that all I have established are a number of key points about the physical-mental duality of existence that Objectivists do not dispute.

Finally, this …

Please understand, though, that my first and fundamental response is that your method is wrong: you need to drop this pervasive rationalism and show us how your ideas have a genuine basis in reality (or admit that they are simply fantasy). No person of reason is interested in deductions from floating notions imported from your religion.

Your frustration is clearly showing. You have a big mental block created by the desire for two irreconcilable things to be true: [1] The mind is not reducible to matter and [2] God does not exist. Another problem, endemic to Objectivists, is the conflation of the necessary with the actual, hence your repeated cry of rationalism on my part. You just don’t get that I am establishing what necessarily exists (a logical project) before discussing what actually exists (an empirical project). If you are impatient with this process, I can’t help you. There is no paint-by-numbers philosophy that colors the complex world of God and man as it truly is.

Of course, I realize that this is all blather to those content with the primary colors of Rand’s philosophy. I know that, because I was once so contented – until I became dissatisfied with the incompleteness of Objectivism and seriously studied outside its confines. By the grace of God I had not closed my mind around only that which was comfortable to believe, and as a result I have discovered great knowledge that has made my life a much happier one (and it wasn’t a bad one at all before then). And I gained a little wisdom, too. For example, I see that any further discussion on this subject is fruitless. So let this post serve as my salutation as I end once and for all my participation in this thread.

Regards, Bill

Hi, Greg.

You say the Law of Causality applies deterministically to physical existents and non-deterministically to mental existents. That’s fine to say that causality comes in two flavors, and I don’t disagree as far as that goes. However, I don’t find it of great utility to stretch out the Law of Causality to cover that which is non-deterministic.

Why? Any non-deterministic cause of a thing can only be understood in its particularity; whereas, universal principles, such as the laws of physics, allow us to understand deterministic causes without regard to particulars. This fundamental epistemological distinction is rooted in the fundamental ontological difference between the physical and the mental. So I don’t see the usefulness of making the Law of Causality include two disparate types of sequences.

Regards, Bill

Hi, Laure, Merlin, & Greg.

You have all indicated a belief that science will some day tell us how the mind, as a non-physical entity, operates. If that epistemological statement is something other than a floating abstraction, it must be predicated upon an ontology of the mind. The problem is that any ontology that supports your purported epistemology is materialist. It’s not hard to understand why.

The methods of science can only provide information about those things which have extension – i.e., matter or the effects of matter – and so can be measured and quantified. This restricts scientific knowledge to matter and mechanics, or in Aristotelian terms, the material and efficient causes of an entity. Science can not tell us anything of the formal and final causes. Therefore, to believe that science is sufficient (in principle) as a means of knowledge about all that exists is to believe that all things are ultimately reducible to measurement and quantification. Yet only matter and its effects are.

If it were otherwise, then we should be able to objectively identify and delimit the minds of others. We should be able to bell jar them. Of course, we can’t do that. Therefore your epistemology of scientism can only logically rest upon an ontology of materialism.

Regards, Bill

Hi, Luke.

If we had all agreed that the existence of God is logically possible, then the next step would have been a discussion as to whether a belief in God is empirically justified. That discussion would then center on the Aristotelian formal and final causes of entities, the problem of universals, and the design and teleological arguments for God.

Regards, Bill

Merlin: "Science is working on it. And what's your answer to this question? Invoking an incredible diety, i.e. an argument from ignorance."

It all comes down to this. Bill, you're amazed by the fact that consciousness exists, and can't see how it could arise from matter. I'm amazed, too! As Merlin says, science is working on it. We can either posit a deity to "explain" it all (which explains nothing), or we can work toward a real explanation through science.

Mr. Tingley, thank you for reproving my previous point. You assume anyone who isn't a substance dualist must be a materialist.

You write:
Then Mr. Jetton, presumably an Objectivist, proceeds to make my point for me. He denies my Statement #5 as "blatantly false", which means he believes that which is mental is material and deterministic per my Statement #3 (which he did not deny). Thus, Mr. Jetton has declared that the mind is matter or an effect of matter, which is, in a word, materialism.

How do you know what I believe? Oh, I get it. You are expert at believing without evidence. And you're wrong, again.

You say:
I hope you are relying upon something better than a Wikipedia article to understand property dualism. At the end of the day, property dualism either evades the question of how the operation of a mental property escapes the determinism of the physical entity embodying it or implicitly reduces itself to materialism.

The article was intended as a pointer, not a treatise. Regarding "evasion" property dualism does not profess to have a complete answer. Science is working on it. And what's your answer to this question? Invoking an incredible diety, i.e. an argument from ignorance.

Bill, I pray for you getting well again, like when you were a child. The mind is intimately one and the same with matter. Just as God would not exist if there were no humans with the faculties for perception (and misperception).

Bill writes: “It's not my fault that you have not thought through the implications of your premises. If you acknowledge that there are two modes of existence -- i.e., the physical and deterministic represented by matter and the mental and non-deterministic represented by the mind -- then, excellent. We share that premise. Reality is dualistic.”

Bill, I particularly enjoy it when someone can show me facts and implications I’ve missed or not fully appreciated; that’s a big value in conversation, and it of course isn’t what I am complaining about.

The problem is your posture of understanding Objectivists and Objectivism, which clashes with your exhibiting a clear and deep lack of understanding of same. You have spent time here arguing that Objectivists should appreciate that existents are finite, that consciousness is real and volition causally efficacious, that all of existence is not necessarily exhausted by the physical universe, and labored mightily to help us see that monism is false -- when these are all basic facts recognized in Objectivism! Your avoided understanding and addressing the basic Objectivist appreciation of minds as subject to causal law and volition as a nondeterministic species of causality. You have argued that there are ontological holes in the Objectivist metaphysics, while not addressing the idea that it is purposefully and legitimately spare to avoid cosmology and the kinds of error-riddled positions you are spinning out in this thread. And worst, you have repeatedly failed to appreciate that the fundamental (and characteristically Objectivist) objection I am offering to your argument is epistemological and not metaphysical. How was it neglected in your essay, much less missed here when directly presented? So, in contrast to your posture, this exchange has betrayed an incompetent understanding of your target in so many ways, and you have been given plenty of feedback to that effect, yet you barrel ahead round after round as if nothing is amiss. I'm struggling to find any charitable interpretation.

Bill continues: “The problem for you is that premise is not sufficient to conclude that it is not logically possible for God, the being of pure spirit Who created the universe, to exist.”

The problem for you is that you don’t understand that I’ve offered an epistemological objection to your argument. I’m saying your entire approach is invalid; your ideas are arbitrary, devoid of real connection to reality, and your conclusions rationalistic and meaningless. Your thinking is worse than wrong in content -- it is wrong in method. My original response worked to highlight this, gesturing to the actual basis in reality for the various ideas you were misusing, showing why I saw absolutely no valid basis for what you were trying to do, asking for the reality-based roots of your approach. To no avail.

So let’s look at how this can get things tangled up by marching through your summary looking for errors and groundless cosmological commitments. (By the way, given your rationalistic bent, all it takes is any *one* of your deductive steps to be shaky for your entire argument to collapse -- if you really think this is your reason for believing God is "logically possible", I presume you’ll suddenly become an atheist?)

Bill summarizes: “So, if your experience is true, then reality is not monistic. It is dualistic. Both mind and matter are fundamental modes of existence. We also know from experience that: [1] All material entities require a cause and not all mental phenomena does (e.g., our intentions), and [2] a mental act can give rise to an alteration in the arrangement of matter (i.e., an intention of the mind causing an electro-chemical response in the brain). Finally, we have no evidence that matter can cause a mind to exist. (This is not to say that matter cannot affect the mind. A common instance is sensory perception delivering data to the mind via the brain.) Therefore, if matter cannot cause the mind, but the mind can at least cause changes in matter, and all material entities must be caused, then the ultimate cause of material entities must be a mind. In that syllogism arises the logical possibility for the existence of God as pure spirit.”

• Non-monism: Thank you again for taking the time to try to convince Objectivists of a basic point they already know.
• All material entities require a cause: Just how do you know this from experience? Our scientific experience is that matter/energy is strictly conserved, changing its form but not being created or destroyed. Philosophically, the principle of causality certainly does not indicate that all entities have a cause (for example, all of existence is often regarded as an entity, and it is eternal). The law of causality simply recognizes what we *do* know: that all actions have a cause -- the entity doing the acting -- and that the actor acts in accordance with its nature.
• Not all mental phenomena are caused: This of course relies on your misunderstanding of causality. The law of causality (properly understood) certainly says all mental phenomena are caused -- they are caused by the entity doing the thinking. And as mentioned earlier, the concept of causality is not properly exhausted by deterministic action.
• The mental can affect the physical: Thank you here as well for taking the time to try to convince Objectivists of a basic point they already know.
• Matter not causing minds: You are making a cosmological argument based on speculation in a scientific field that isn’t well understood -- precisely an error that Objectivists avoid. We do have these facts, though: we always and only find minds as attributes of biological (i.e., physical) animals -- and we find a tight causal relationship between (and *only* between) the brain and the mind, with the physical affecting the content and operation of the mental and vice versa. We also know about emergent phenomena, where systems of one kind of thing (like matter?) can give rise to new (even fundamentally different) kinds of things (like consciousness?). But as I said, it is a matter for scientists to sort out, not for us to dogmatize about from our philosophical armchairs. However, we do know enough to dismiss your argument as beyond problematic.
• Your grand syllogism: On top of the above issues with your rationalistic premises, here you arbitrarily leap from our observing minds (only ever) affecting the actions of their biological organism’s brain/body, to mind(s) *creating* ALL things physical.

Your rationalistic construct collapses at so many points, and these issues aren’t fresh in the thread, yet you still offered this paragraph again rather than retracting it.

Please understand, though, that my first and fundamental response is that your method is wrong: you need to drop this pervasive rationalism and show us how your ideas have a genuine basis in reality (or admit that they are simply fantasy). No person of reason is interested in deductions from floating notions imported from your religion.

Thanks,
Greg

Bill, assuming you had actually persuaded us of hylomorphism, God, etc. as "logically possible," where had you intended to carry this discussion?

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

Mr. Jetton is upset that I assume Objectivism entails materialism. Of course, I did not say that. I said Objectivists frequently import materialism into Objectivist to fill the ontological hole left by Rand and Peikoff.

Then Mr. Jetton, presumably an Objectivist, proceeds to make my point for me. He denies my Statement #5 as "blatantly false", which means he believes that which is mental is material and deterministic per my Statement #3 (which he did not deny). Thus, Mr. Jetton has declared that the mind is matter or an effect of matter, which is, in a word, materialism.

Regards, Bill

P.S. Merlin, I hope you are relying upon something better than a Wikipedia article to understand property dualism. At the end of the day, property dualism either evades the question of how the operation of a mental property escapes the determinism of the physical entity embodying it or implicitly reduces itself to materialism.

Contrary to Mr. Tingley's assumptions, Objectivism does not entail materialism. He obviously subscribes to substance dualism and assumes anyone who doesn't must be a materialist. It seems that he has not heard of property dualism. (Wikipedia has an article about it.)

He writes: 5. That which is mental is conscious, volitional, or rational, and neither consists of matter nor is an effect of matter.

Blatantly false.

Hi, Greg.

It's not my fault that you have not thought through the implications of your premises. If you acknowledge that there are two modes of existence -- i.e., the physical and deterministic represented by matter and the mental and non-deterministic represented by the mind -- then, excellent. We share that premise. Reality is dualistic.

The problem for you is that premise is not sufficient to conclude that it is not logically possible for God, the being of pure spirit Who created the universe, to exist. Indeed, the premise permits that logical possibility as I argued here:

So, if your experience is true, then reality is not monistic. It is dualistic. Both mind and matter are fundamental modes of existence. We also know from experience that: [1] All material entities require a cause and not all mental phenomena does (e.g., our intentions), and [2] a mental act can give rise to an alteration in the arrangement of matter (i.e., an intention of the mind causing an electro-chemical response in the brain). Finally, we have no evidence that matter can cause a mind to exist. (This is not to say that matter cannot affect the mind. A common instance is sensory perception delivering data to the mind via the brain.) Therefore, if matter cannot cause the mind, but the mind can at least cause changes in matter, and all material entities must be caused, then the ultimate cause of material entities must be a mind. In that syllogism arises the logical possibility for the existence of God as pure spirit.

Let me express my argument another way:

1. All existents are either physical or mental.

2. That which is physical consists of matter or is an effect of matter.

3. Matter and its effects are spatially and temporally extended, finite, deterministic, and caused.

4. Therefore, all that is physical must be caused.

5. That which is mental is conscious, volitional, or rational, and neither consists of matter nor is an effect of matter.

6. Not all that is mental must be caused.

7. Physical and mental existents can interact and cause changes in one another.
a. Because that which is mental is not material, a physical effect upon a mental existent does not entail the cause of any further mental effects.
b. Because that which is physical is material, a mental effect upon a physical existent deterministically causes further physical effects.

8. Because:
a. All that is physical must be caused (#4),
b. That which is mental need not be caused (#6),
c. Physical and mental existents can interact (#7),
only that which is mental can be the ultimate cause of all that is physical.

The logically possibility for the God I have defined in my articles lies in the truth of Statement #8. If you deny the truth of that statement, then you can logically do so only by denying the truth of one of the prior statements. If so, I only see three resolutions (and severe problems) along that course:

Materialism. Only the physical exists and there is no explanation possible or needed for its cause. (This is, of course, contrary to our experience of mental phenomena and does violence to free will and ethics.)

Emergentism. The physical is the ultimate cause of the mental. (This requires a breakdown of the law of causality, as opposed to its inapplicability to the mental, and at the end of the day is merely “materialism postponed”.)

Parallelism. The physical and the mental have always existed, neither one causing the other. (This, however, still does not logically preclude a Creator, a mentality who arranged matter as we now observe it, while positing the physical with the unobserved attribute of temporal infinity.)

So, I remain steadfast. Your insistence that Objectivism metaphysically precludes the possibility of the Christian God can only rest logically upon materialist presumptions. Either outright materialism or its weak sister, emergentism. You can decry my ignorance of Objectivism, by its not my fault that neither Rand nor Peikoff developed an ontology that squares the formal assertion that Objectivism is not materialism with its metaphysical atheism, and so Objectivism provides no clear answer of how it gets from here to there. What you call ignorance is precisely my knowledge of the incompleteness of Objectivism and my understanding that Objectivists usually try to fill that gap with hidden, if not explicit, materialist premises.

Now it’s true that not all Objectivists have succumbed, wittingly or unwittingly, to materialism. Some have thought out the implications of the primacy of existence, the existence of consciousness, and the law of identity to make non-materialist arguments that do not require the existence of God for the existence of the universe. Usually some manner of the parallelism I noted above. I don’t find those arguments persuasive, but at least their atheism is a reasoned (if flawed) conclusion rather than a Valliant-like faith to which everything must be bent.

That’s where it rests, Greg. Your atheism is pure faith, and a fideistic one at that, if you insist that the existence of God is logically impossible.

Regards, Bill

Bill, you came out swinging in this thread, indicating you were a longtime ‘Randian’ and that you know all about Objectivism and the Objectivist positions and arguments on these things, but at every turn you have consistently demonstrated utter confusion about your target.  This condition has not improved, even after being given ample evidence that you really don’t know what you are talking about.  I don’t want to be a jerk about it, but something has to change or I’ll be bowing out: please, either show a little respect and do your homework before opening fire, or tone down the uninformed pronouncements. 

You write that I am a materialist and that,“the only means by which you can metaphysically preclude the logical possibility of God within an objective reality is with the premise that everything that exists is matter or an effect of matter. The problem with materialism is that it entails a deterministic universe and so our experience of non-deterministic phenomena of the mind would be an illusion. Thus, our experience could not be relied upon to obtain knowledge of reality. Indeed, knowledge would be meaningless in a materialist universe. But then that doesn’t matter because we would be nothing but matter in motion entirely subject to the law of causality. We would need no knowledge for we would do whatever the deterministic laws of physics dictate. Knowledge has no purpose absent volition. But then, nothing has purpose in a materialist universe. There is only the blind functioning of matter to no end.

But Bill, this entire time I have been making an *epistemological* point, not a metaphysical one.  As people of reason in a scientific era, we (should) note and classify phenomena objectively and avoid rationalistically wedging them into arbitrary categories to suit some dogma hunting for a rationalization.  Here and above, for example, you have been equating a species of causality (deterministic causality) with the entire category.  This is the fallacy of the frozen abstraction -- like mis-forming the category ‘dog’ to subsume only poodles, leaving collies and chihuahuas as unrelated non-dog somethings.  This helps you mistakenly classify volition as some sort of exception-to or violation-of causality, rather than what it is: another species of causality.  Checking out reality, what we observe is that all effects have causes and that no entity acts apart from or in violation of its nature.  We observe that some effects are mechanistically determined (by external influence), while others are chosen (internal influence, someone having a Prime Mover moment).  The general principle we’ve arrived at is that all entities act in accordance with their nature, hence the formulation that causality is identity in the realm of action.  (Note how this includes, but is not exhausted by, deterministic causality.)

As for volition being non-deterministic and required for knowledge and meaning and all that, Objectivists have no disagreement.  Again, you really should do some homework before coming in with guns blazing like this if you don’t want to come off as an intellectually lazy, or worse.  As indicated above, Objectivists’ disagreement with you lies in your mis-classifying volition as an exception-to or violation-of causality.  When I lift my arm, the cause is not properly attributed to anything outside me, *I* am the cause of interest -- and this is an expression, not a violation, of my nature as a volitional being.  And I of course have a cause (my parents got together, yadda yadda), but that cause of me is not properly considered the cause of my arm going up.  Also, as Luke has brought up, it does not follow that if I am constructed of deterministic physical stuff, that my every attribute must be deterministic and physical – after all, we know that emergent phenomena allow for properties to exist in a system which are not present in any of the elements, bringing about a whole strictly greater than the parts.  So it is true that we are conscious and that consciousness is not physical, and that we have volition and volition isn’t deterministic – but these facts do not support the fantastic ideas you have adopted on the authority of your religion.

I’ll stop here because your entire rationalistic construct appears to have fallen flat.  You remain in no position to posit the “logical possibility” of God as you’ve described Him.

Thanks,
Greg

Once more, Bill, I got the idea that you regard your belief as being based on "experience" -- what I was asking was for the specific experiences in question. WHAT "experience" leads you to it? And HOW does it do so? I do not "experience" dualism directly, and do not know how it would logically get us there, anyway -- so what do you mean?

And, how 'bout all of those other questions?