Parrish makes 2 points--(1) Objectivists haven't kept up with the literature and (2) we either beg the question or beat straw men. I whole heartedly agree with the first. I don't know any Oist who is familiar with either, say, Plantinga or even with Gale or Drange, who argue the atheist case.
As for (2), that is what I have been addressing in my Parrish v Objectivists series.
We do need to catch up or we're simply going to be irrelevant on this issue.

Cheers back,

Fred

Michael -

I have no positive belief in extra terrestrial life and I don't actively believe there is none either.

I do, however, consider the existence of extra terrestrial life as possible as my own existence.

Cheers,

Reed

Do you have no positive belif in extra terrestial life or do you actively believe there is none?

Fred - The cause of me, Fred Seddon, is eternal, but that doesn't mean that I am eternal.
Yes, I agree.

This simply means that the elements exist before there is any life. In other words, life is not eternal

Atoms are made of component parts which had to exist before the atom could. Does this suggest there was once a time when there were no atoms? [Edit: Also does it suggest that a particular atom had to have a beginning?]

I've been thinking further about naturalism/evolution...
One of the suggestions regarding first life is that it was simple, but assuming everything alive today descended from that organism then I can't see any way for it to have been less complex than all forms of life that descend from it.

Consider this...if someone was to write a program and this program was able to reproduce and, over time, produce all the software that exists today. Would you consider the initial program to be more or less complex than the resulting programs?

Even if I assume that naturalism/evolution is true it still leads me to a conclusion that implies a preceding designer.

What did you conclude about Parrish's ideas in the end. I would say if he arrived at the conclusion of an alien creator that he ruled out God as one of his original assumptions.

Cheers,

Reed

On aliens--I just don't believe.

On Lavoisier's defintion--my fault for shooting from the hip. The definition can be phrased without obvious circularity as follows:

"A living thing is a temporary dynamic equilibrium between chemical materials external and internal to its epidermis." (p. 172-3 SCIENCE AND FIRST PRINCIPLES, F. S. C. Northrop.

".then life does seem be be downstream of those elements. But this is tough territory.
I don't know what you mean."

This simple means that the elements exist before there is any life. In other words, life is not eternal

"If you can accept an eternal existence that possesses the nature to cause life why would you assume that once upon a time there was no life?"
The cause of me, Fred Seddon, is eternal, but that doesn't mean that I am eternal.

Fred

Fred -
No on the aliens.
Because you are an objectivist I have to ask... does that mean you actively disbelieve or just do not believe.

As for infinite spatial dimension. There is some slight evidence for 11 dimension and even that is tentative.
When I said spacial dimensions are infinite I was only speaking of length, width and height being infinite in size - I wasn't saying that there is an infinite number of spacial dimensions, considering even a forth makes my brain hurt.

Of course, if you define space as the void, then Aristotle and the Objectivists deny that it exists.
I'm not convinced of the existence of empty space either but in a completely different way than Aristotle and Objectivists but that is more a question of physics than philosophy.

From my perspective part of the nature of existence is that things tend to exist over both space and time. Is this contradictory to naturalism or objectivist naturalism?

Apologies for dragging you off topic.

On life. If one accepts Lavoisier's definition of life as an equilibrium between the physical-chemical elements within and without the living entities skin...
Note: I can't accept Lavoisier's definition of "life" because it refers to "living" nor can I accept Piekoffs definition of "nature" because it includes the word "nature".

...then life does seem be be downstream of those elements. But this is tough territory.
I don't know what you mean.

If we restrict ourselves to earth, on the other hand, then it seems as if once upon a time there was no life.
If you can accept an eternal existence that possesses the nature to cause life why would you assume that once upon a time there was no life?

Cheers

Reed

No on the aliens.
As for infinite spatial dimension. There is some slight evidence for 11 dimension and even that is tentaitve. Of course, if you define space as the void, then Aristotle and the Objectivists deny that it exists.
On life. If one accepts Lavoisier's definition of life as an equilibrium between the physical-chemical elements within and without the living entities skin, then life does seem be be downstream of those elements. But this is tough territory. If we restrict ourselves to earth, on the other hand, then it seems as if once upon a time there was no life.

Fred

(1) I don't see how infinite spatial dimensions implies that life has always existed.

A conclusion drawn from Naturalism plus assumptions (a) and (b) is that...

The nature of what exist causes life* to exist over time.

To determine the frequency that this occurs we need to consider the physical scope.

Physical scope assumptions...
c) spacial dimensions are infinite
d) the nature of existence is consistent across space

With these assumptions we have an infinite scope and therefore a certainty of life existing at any given time ie. life has always existed.

(2) I don't get the alien implication at all. Unless God is an alien...
I'm not sure what implication you are looking for but no, I am not suggesting God is an alien.
A friend had told me "If people don't believe in God they believe in aliens", I think I have identified why he makes that claim. It's a side issue but a point of interest to me. I'm agnostic when it comes to aliens. What about you, do you believe in aliens?

*Note: There is a hidden assumption that life has a start.

On naturalism. Peikoff writes this: "What is nature? Nature is existence--the sum of that which is. It is usually called 'nature' when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by a law. So 'nature' really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their nature."
Now although Plantinga doesn't use exactly those words, it seems obvious to me that he means something like that when he writes his essay against naturalism. The alternative he proposed to naturalism is a "naturalist epistemology" coupled with "supernaturalistic metaphysics."
Now as for the more detailed expo that you present, all that is of course discussable by the "naturalist epistemologist."

To address two specific ideas in one of your previous posts: (1) I don't see how infinite spatial dimensions implies that life has always existed. And (2) I don't get the alien implication at all. Unless God is an alien--then at least you have Plantinga on your side.

Fred

If we add the assumptions that spacial dimensions are infinite and the nature of existence is consistent* across those dimensions then it follows that life has always existed and always will.

Naturalism plus these assumptions...
a) time has no beginning
b) the nature of existence is consistent over time
c) spacial dimensions are infinite
d) the nature of existence is consistent across space
... is the same as the religious philosophy Uniformitarianism (the way things are is the way things are).

Note: For those who missed it, naturalism plus assumptions (a and b) or (c and d) requires the existence of aliens.

*Again, Nick Otani suggests there might be somewhere that does not comply with the nature of existence.

Naturalism appears to be atheism dressed up as science. Everything can be explained by what is natural and not the supernatural. Where by "natural" it means "the nature of what exists" and by "supernatural" they mean something other than natural.

When I try to understand the perspective of naturalism it leads me to the following...
1. Ultimately the cause of life has always existed.
2. The nature of what exists causes life.

Assuming that the nature of what exists is constant* it would not be possible to point to a time before which matter and energy hadn't existed; similarly while each star or planet may have had a beginning it would not be possible to point to a time before which no stars or planets had ever existed.

Also, if the nature of what exists causes the conditions for life and causes life; and that nature has always existed then there is no point in time before which no life had ever existed.

And if we are accepting the nature of what exists as eternal then we are accepting a causeless cause and ultimately life without cause.

Naturalism leads to the conclusion that the nature of what exists is causeless and eternal and that it causes life, intelligence and consciousness; at the same time naturalism denies the possibility of any involvement from something possessing this nature.

*Nick Otani suggests that the nature of existence may be changing.

You may be right. See Plantinga's article "Is Naturalism Irrational" in which he addresses this issue.

Fred

I think it all boils down to whether we see design in what exists.

Fred -
Objectivists define "evil" as that which is inimical to man's life qua rational being.
What, like smoking and drinking?

Cheers

Reed

Great post. I received the Plantinga book today and will begin an intensive study soon, but a preliminary glance seems to inidicate the following. He would agree with you and Jay that a defence is not a proof, but I get the feeling that his move is something like this: You atheists claim we theists are irrational, but I'm going to show, not a proof that God exists, but that being a theist is more rational than being an atheist. More later.

I think you are right about the Whack a mole problem. All we can do is fight when a theist defines his terms and adheres to reason. As soon as they play the "faith" card, I'm gone.

As to your point 4, other obvious one's include, Can God (an eternal being) commit suicide. Gale has a cute variation on this. When President Reagan was asked about the Iran-contra affair he said, "I don't know, I don't remember." Such answers are not available to God, so Reagan can do something God can't do. Tee hee.

On point 5. Objectivists define "evil" as that which is inimical to man's life qua rational being.

Once again, great post.

Fred

Fred -
I've read your Once more with feeling post and Parrish v Objectivism I and II and the god who isn't. I've been meaning to respond for a while but couldn't spare the time until now.

My perspective of the discussion so far...

As Jay (aka smoovegeek) pointed out a defense is not the same as a proof and from what I can see only a defense is offered by Parrish. In the same post Jay equated lack of proof with lack of evidence which is incorrect in the same way.

Lindsay brought up the burden of proof. If Parrish is making a knowledge claim then he would require a proof, if on the other hand he acknowledges that he "believes" in God then he does not require a proof.
Similarly if an atheist believes there is no God then no proof is required but if he makes a knowledge claim then he has the burden of proof. By extension if objectivists claim ideas as knowledge that are dependent on atheism being true then a proof of atheism would be required.

I think you are stuck with the "Whack a mole" approach but can rule out some ideas of God. Like when you said I think you will find that Christians must take God as being independent from the universe... you rightly ruled out any idea of a God that is dependent on his own creation.

God is spirit - some might consider this to mean God is pure consciousness - I have seen objectivists claim consciousness without physical form to be impossible but the proposed proofs I have seen fall short... ie. if someone considers "existence" to be Gods consciousness then the argument fails.
Note - I don't believe that God is pure consciousness. The word for spirit is also translated as "wind" and "breath" plus there is disagreement among christians about whether man has a spirit. As christians don't deny mans' consciousness I think you will find many christians don't equate consciousness with spirit.

I have a different perspective than Bill but he's finished with the discussion so I will answer a couple of the questions you asked him.

4. ... [can] God create a rock he can’t lift and he can lift it...
The first time I heard this the answer I gave was "I don't know, you can ask him when you see him". After considering it though I came to the same conclusion that Bill did ie. "No such rock is possible". You might get better answers from your students if you ask them a question where the contradiction is more obvious like "Can God make a silent noise?".

5. Does God cause evil?
I have always considered that "evil" is "to oppose God".
It could be argued that God caused evil by creating free will - but that would be a self defeating argument.
How do objectivists define "evil"?

Cheers

Reed

As Kelley points out in chapter ! of his THE ART OF REASONING, thinking is purposive mental activity and may be contrasted with daydreaming which is not. We can be conscious of both--which implies that consciousness is neither.

The locus classicus for Aristotle's view on the intellectual is Chapter VI of the NICOMACHEAN ETHICS. There he discloses five such key terms: episteme, nous, sophia, phronesis and techne. All translations are interpretations, but one thing is for sure, No one has ever rendered any of these terms with "consciousness." One of the best analysis of what Aristotle is doing in ch. 6 is by Heidegger in the first 128 pages of his book PLATO'S SOPHIST. Enjoy.

Fred

I must admit to being a bit flummoxed by the notion of thought without consciousness. My ancient Greek is virtually nil, so perhaps you can shed some light on this for me.

Obviously if you can get a Christian to agree that spirit = consciousness then you point is a good one. But surely "x has no material = x is consciousness" just won't fly. Take Aristotle for example. The unmoved mover has no material (hule) but he is not consciousness; rather he is thought (nous) thinking thought. Old Aristotle didn't even have the concept "consciousness." (I'd say see my book on Aristotle but it is out of print. In that book I point out that consciousness didn't enter the vocabulary of philosophers until the 17th century. Bacon introduced it in 1601.)
Or take a more pedestrian example. Take the relation "marriage." It is certainly not a material object, i.e., it's immaterial but certainly not conscious.
As I communicated to LInz, I don't want to load the dice for our side. I want to meet the best argument they got.
And I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that there are better atheological arguments out there than in Rand or Peikoff. I cited Ted Drange and Richard Gale myself in an earlier post. Those two are great.

Fred

In my understanding of Christian theology, God is pure spirit with no material form. I would interpret this as pure consciousness, but the argument could do with some more solid definitions.