It all rests on the illegitimate definition of "immaterial".

(Ah! This is great! I'm going to learn so much from this guy! Can't wait!) And what might that be?

I won't get into more here

You pussy.

That takes energy I don't have right now.

Maybe it's from wanking off too much. Give it a rest. Otherwise you'll end up like gregster: blind, bland, and mentally incapacitated.

I'll take that as a Yes.

To quote you: Whatever, dude.

I know the Contra crowd.

You don't know jack.

I have debated them before and it is both informative and tiring. Maybe I will take it up again later. We'll see.

(Snore . . .) You're not among the 300 Spartans, I see.

Tell you what, Dougie. I'll set my alarm clock for this time, 5 years from now. That should give you just enough time to pull your head out your ass without tearing something delicate, OK? Otherwise . . .

. . . See ya' on the slopes, dude! (wheeeeeeeee . . . . . . .)

Yeah, I know we hate each other. Still, good points. You got to the heart of it, he destroys context, purposely.

Rational or not, he's actually a clever rhetorician, worlds better than the other theists on SOLO, and better than most Oists ('better' only in rhetoric - which can include adept use of emotion, wordplay, and outright fallacies - not better in ideas, rationality, or other ways).

This goes for all the Contra-Randers. Good in rhetoric, terrible in ideas. They butcher context. Just look at this:

You've also never seen evidence of other minds, other thoughts, other intentions, apart from your own; yet apparently that hasn't turned you into a solipsist. You should be, if you were consistent in applying the test of "seeing is believing.

This is a very common theistic argument that tries to say that since consciousness is immaterial but nevertheless exists, god is immaterial but nevertheless exists too. It all rests on the illegitimate definition of "immaterial". I won't get into more here but these are somewhat sophisticated theistic polemics and they are constantly used by the more philosophical anti-secular, anti-atheist, anti-Rand Conservatives. Larry Auster uses these types of arguments regularly. You have to be in an energetic mood to deal effectively with these because you will have to go heavy into epistemology and proper definitions. That takes energy I don't have right now.

Why do you need to know? Rand never needed to know. Rand was able to get along just fine responding to opponents' arguments irrespective of who made them.

Not up to the task yourself?

I'll take that as a Yes. I know the Contra crowd. They are religious apologists who lean towards a Paleo-Con outlook. All of them believe in the Humean Is/Ought divide and have the disease of Rand hatred. I have debated them before and it is both informative and tiring. Maybe I will take it up again later. We'll see.

Ah. The Big Bang, again.

Why is that a problem for anyone?

Our knowledge of that event is complete only down to some exceedingly small yet positive value of time from that event. Our knoweldge of what preceded it is missing.

But, there are many hypotheses.

Magic:
1] Entity outside of this universe.

Physics:
2] Cyclic endless universe, ours is a cycle, what preceded the last Big Bang was the Big Collapse.
3] Multiverse collisions, Big Bang as singular instance of collision of M-Branes in some larger dimensions multiverse. One way universe.

Magician using physics:
4] 1] by design using 2] or 3] or whatever physicists discover as plausible.

And, all of the above useless in answering the Big Question.

Because if it either is or is not an existential continuity problem that a first Creator had no Creator, then it equally is or is not a problem that a first Cold Process had no initiating Cold Process. Because the 'other/multiverse hypothesis simply kick the can down the road, and beg the same questions.

Meanwhile, we observe that 'what works, works.' What can be, can be.

Something from nothing? Can that be?

0=0

A+-A = 0

A!=0

-A !=0

A=A

-A=-A

There. Two for the price of none, starting with 0=0. All conservation laws obeyed plus 'what works, works. what can be can be.'

We have little trouble accepting that when matter and anti-matter collide, they are both 'annihilated' because in the bias of our universe, it is easy to run downhill.

Then by symmetry, what is the opposite? When what is 'annihilated' becomes matter and anti-matter? Because it can.

Imagine a billion Big Bangs occurring every second. In most of them, enough symmetry to have all matter and anti-matter anihilated. In some of them, enough asymetry (as in 1 part in 1 billion particles not balanced) to emit both a universe of mostly matter dominating anti-matter, and by symmetry, a second universe of mostly anti-matter dominating matter. Two universes for the price of none.

Ours as one of the survivers. There, a new fairy tale, equally impotent in answering the Big Question.

That is a much more interesting hypothetical to ponder; what would be sufficient evidence of a Creator? The novel "Contact' touched on this pondering. (Missing from the movie.) In the novel, there is a successful search for a message buried inside the mathematical representation of PI, as a hypothetical. In a given representation, buried way out in the gazillionth decimal place, is found a repeating string of 0s and 1s that, when laid out on a square pixel grid, depict a perfect circle with a cross in the middle.

Also, an interesting movie from 1997/1998, 'PI', touching on similar hypotheticals. If there was irrefutable proof of an intelligent Creator, then what would that proof look like? What form would objectively be 'proof?' Because even in those hypotheticals, there was yet doubt. As in, the folks who put the Talmud in a blender and divine messages.

It is what we do; we search for patterns. It once was indespensible to our survival, looking for the lions in the grass, even if our gain ws turned up so high that we sometimes saw lions that weren't really there. We survived the instances of false trues better than the instances of false falses, and so, often see the lions/Gods even when they aren't there.

...inside of our universe speaks for that which is by definition hypothesized as outside of our universe?

As well, if it is both inside and outside of our universe at the same time, then ... who speaks for the part that is inside of our universe?

If it speaks for itself --wherever it is is-- then it clearly communicates imperfectly.

As far as what is happening inside of this universe, the fact of it doesn't begin to answer the big question. In the hypothetical that this universe was shown to operate under understandable laws of cold process, in the end it can simply be claimed, safely, that an entity by definition outside of this universe chose cold process to make this universe happen.

And therefore, a matter safely of faith, even in that hypothetical in which it was either true or untrue.

As well, if confronted with other intelligent technological life even just a few hundred years more advanced than we are, enough men would be sufficiently convinced that these entities were angels/messengers from God that even in the face of such 'proof' -- no matter what outside of our understanding 'impossible miracles' they perfromed for our amusement, in the face of such 'proof it would still safely be a matter of faith.

And therefore, a matter safely of faith even in that hypothetical in which it wasn't true.

In this life, bets about a next life are sucker bets. The payoff is safely not in this life, even as the bets are placed in this life.

To me, in this life, it is a debate going nowhere in this life. It is a personal act of faith safely resolved only outside of this universe where none of us are.

Restricting the debate to inside of this universe, then on the concept God, who speaks for God? Who -- in this context-- makes rules for God? Who claims to be recieving exclusive messages from God, meant to be passed on to the rest of us, using the receptive equipment given only to them and not others?

As a peer, I have no concievable interest in the internal ponderings of others on the subject of what is safely outside of this universe and if their faith leads them to believe in a God, and that belief gives them comfort, then that isn't a matter of my or any public concern... until they erupt as political movements, or masked political movements, and in so doing, attempt to eat the freedom of all of us, including the true believers, by leglifting their personal belief into a political argument to run skins not their own.

The fox got into the chicken coop.

The Fox had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character. What had chickens to offer him?

Jason-
I agree with your specific criticisms of Darren with one key exception - whether he's worth debating. Rational or not, he's actually a clever rhetorician, worlds better than the other theists on SOLO, and better than most Oists ('better' only in rhetoric - which can include adept use of emotion, wordplay, and outright fallacies - not better in ideas, rationality, or other ways). I wish I had more time to engage, since I think Darren could be about the most interesting debate with a theist since some clashes on alt.atheism 15-20 years ago. I do hope others will cross swords with him.

The fox got into the chicken coop.

--Brant
bow, wow!

To gain your black belt, it's insufficient to be called a piece of shit. You must be called worse than a piece of shit. (I gained my black belt quite some time ago. My black belt status has just been reinforced; I'm "a piece of pomo-excrement," but that's "being unkind to excrement.")

It's like an Objectivist baptism.

Anyway, amigo, sincere thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to dress for the occasion if and when this blessed event occurs.

you conniving piece [of] reptilian shit.

If SOLO had a grading system (akin, perhaps, to that used in the martial arts) for opponents of Objectivism, grades would be awarded on the basis of compliments received. Your rise through the ranks has been meteoric. It looks like you've already gained your, er... brown belt. (I, myself, have been called an abhorrent torrent of pomo-effluence.)

To gain your black belt, it's insufficient to be called a piece of shit. You must be called worse than a piece of shit. (I gained my black belt quite some time ago. My black belt status has just been reinforced; I'm "a piece of pomo-excrement," but that's "being unkind to excrement.")

Stick around, and I'm sure you won't have long to wait.

Sadly, this would appear to be the case. Darren is barren.

And regretfully, Lindsay is flimsy.

I pointed out earlier he was perpetrating the fallacies of non sequitur, equivocation, question-begging and infinite regress.

You pointed out; you did not prove. Anyway, glad you've jumped in and joined the fray. Your friends must be happy to see you because they weren't faring too well.

His response was simply an elaborate exercise in recidivism.

Sorry you didn't like it.

At that point I figured that, indeed, he was "not worth debating."

That seems to be the common feeling of the more hostile / less able minds on this board (which doesn't include you, Flim, since you are easily the most hostile / least able mind on this board. I'm a hard audience to please, so I choose my superlatives carefully.)

But I hope someone does debate him.

I do too. That'll make it much easier on you. If they win, you can take credit for it; if they lose, they can take the blame. (Your well deserved reputation for fairness and good sportsmanship toward your friends is known the world over.)

From exchanges like these we get gems such as, something can indeed come from nothing (Barren)

Ah. The Big Bang, again. Yes, most Objectivists have trouble with that one. You object that when it comes to talking about science, I prefer the considered opinions of scientists to the biases of philosophers. A chacun son meme gout.

You might like to believe that philosophy has "veto power" over science -- as Peikoff once quipped at his intro lectures many years ago -- but in the field of science, only better science has veto power over science.
Here's what I don't get about your position: If you wouldn't trust a philosopher, even an Objectivist, to veto your oncologist regarding the best treatment for prostate cancer, why would you trust a philosopher, even an Objectivist, to veto an astrophysicist regarding the best interpretation of the Big Bang?

From exchanges like these we also see a microcosm of what's wrong with the world.

That IS a bit hyperbolic, Flim, don't you think? Let's leave the big stage-gestures to the opera divas and narrow the focus a bit:

From posts such as yours, gruntster's, and Winefield's, we see what's wrong with this board, as well as, in miniature, what's wrong with Objectivism: the main problem with Objectivism is Objectivists. Most of them were drawn to Objectivism because they like the combination of hostility and doctrinaire defensiveness practiced by so many of its "students." They fancy themselves Rand's "New Intellectuals" though they are really just Old Ignoramuses in New Egos.

The willful abandonment of reason, the hysterical hostility toward objectivity, the alliance of faith and nihilism, the brazen dishonesty (Gobby has the same metaphysical/epistemological status as other people's thoughts, etc.)

Actually, Flimsy, you are only directly aware of your own thoughts and perceptions; you've never observed someone else's thoughts and perceptions -- you've only observed their behavior -- so the epistemological status of other people's thoughts and perceptions is therefore one of: inference. Just like the Gobmeister.

So to those Randian Onanists who cry that they've never "seen" evidence of Gobs, I reply "So? You infer the existence of lots of things you've never seen."

of the enemy, the ignoble malice of the drooling beast ... it's all here, and writ large. Why are Islamogoblinism and socialism flourishing? Look no further than Barren and Baade. Unreason rules.

Brava! (applause). This must all be rehearsal for when you sing in the shower, Flim: the big, flailing histrionics, the high-flung, drama-queen melodramatics. I hope you're more careful on a slick surface next to a glass door than you are here because you've slipped and fallen.

So, Baade is saying it has faith that Gobby exists *because* it has seen no evidence for the existence, now or ever, of such a being?

In my interpretation I was foolishly giving it the benefit of a foolish doubt. But it was stating in effect, with Tertullian: it is absurd, therefore I believe it. Fine. I should have known. I stand corrected. An innocent, benevolent error. Reinforces the fact that it, Baade, is a piece of pomo-excrement, reserving unto itself the right to "confabulate" about a goblin while affecting to be anti-"confabulation." Low-life. And that's being unkind to excrement and low-lifes.

"Start as [I] mean to go on"? Here's what it, Baade, linked to. I stand by every word:

This is the gentleman to whom I alluded in my comment on today's Quote of the Day thread.

Note that which he quotes approvingly:

Where, for instance, does our conviction that human rights are universal come from? "Humans' rights to me are as mysterious as the holy trinity," he told the audience at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. "You can't do a CT scan to show where humans' rights are, you can't cut someone open and show us their human rights," he pointed out. "It's not an empirical thing, it's just something we strongly believe. It's a purely metaphysical entity."

On the libertyloop, Richard's case has, under questioning, boiled down to:

1) The proposition that freedom is good is an article of faith.

2) The proposition that freedom is good is also objectively true because ... well, BECAUSE.

3) There can be no question of "Good, by what standard?" since the good is already there, independent of human beings and their questions. A universe without human beings would still contain "the good."

4) The good is ineffable. It cannot be defined.

5) Objective values can only exist without valuERS. Bring valuers into it and the values automatically become subjective, regardless of their proximity to reality.

6) Life as the standard of value is ridiculous, Ayn Rand is ridiculous and her followers think she's infallible.

7) Confronted with a murderous Saddam on the rampage, the best we can do according to this view is tell him he's evil, even though we can't specify why or define what we mean. And actually, this gentleman opposed the liberation of Iraq. Funny that.

And there's more. But this is enough to be going on with in chronicling the sick state of what passes as philosophy these days.

Linz

Oh, and - rights are a *concept*, drawn from metaphysical characteristics, i.e. from reality, but not in themselves metaphysical. (That's Objectivism now, not our fashionable "philosopher.") That's why you can't scan them or see them between your thumb and forefinger. The concept is entirely valid and good and crucial for humans but would disappear as soon as human beings did.

Perhaps at some point Baade would care to address a modicum of a smidgeon of an intimation of the beginnings of it?

And does Baade also believe that something can come from nothing?

As Jason says, these creatures are worthless. Except as exemplars, and thus illumination, of the ignoble.

As I said, Baade and Barren are illustrative of why the world is as it is.

Filth.

Here's what Robert said

I am an atheist principally (but not exclusively) because I have seen no evidence for the existence, now or ever of such a being.

Here's what I said in response

I have faith that God exists for the same reason.

Here's what you said I said

I have faith that [Gobby] exists for similar reasons [that no evidence has been presented that he doesn't]

Why has "the same reason" become "similar reasons"? Why has "no evidence that he does" become "no evidence that he doesn't"?

I'm afraid you misrepresent me. Do you do so intentionally? Can't you read? Or is it confabulation?

Might as well start as you mean to go on.

Are you a ContraAynRander? I just want to know who, or what, I am dealing with.

Why do you need to know? Rand never needed to know. Rand was able to get along just fine responding to opponents' arguments irrespective of who made them.

Besides, she was able to figure out who or what she was dealing with from the context of the discussion, debate, or argument.

Not up to the task yourself?

Of our goblian newbie, Darren, you write:

... [his] is a monumentally mediocre mind. He is the sort of person you can't reach because he either isn't capable of any kind of legitimate understanding or he won't admit it. He won't deal with concepts. Whether this is because of evasion or some kind of intellectual defect, it doesn't matter. He's worthless and not worth debating.

Sadly, this would appear to be the case. Darren is barren.

I pointed out earlier he was perpetrating the fallacies of non sequitur, equivocation, question-begging and infinite regress. His response was simply an elaborate exercise in recidivism. At that point I figured that, indeed, he was "not worth debating." But I hope someone does debate him. From exchanges like these we get gems such as, something can indeed come from nothing (Barren) and "I have faith that [Gobby] exists for similar reasons [that no evidence has been presented that he doesn't]" (Baade).

From exchanges like these we also see a microcosm of what's wrong with the world. The willful abandonment of reason, the hysterical hostility toward objectivity, the alliance of faith and nihilism, the brazen dishonesty (Gobby has the same metaphysical/epistemological status as other people's thoughts, etc.) of the enemy, the ignoble malice of the drooling beast ... it's all here, and writ large. Why are Islamogoblinism and socialism flourishing? Look no further than Barren and Baade. Unreason rules.

Doug, Darren is not a worthy enemy even for people I don't like -- like you. This is a different sort of animal. He's not smart, but he is clever at defending his agenda which is to attack anything we would call "conceptual".

Above he responded to Robert, who disregards the concept "God" because there is no proper evidence. Darren says:

"You've also never seen evidence of other minds, other thoughts, other intentions, apart from your own; yet apparently that hasn't turned you into a solipsist. You should be, if you were consistent in applying the test of "seeing is believing."

Yet of course Robert, and every other honest thinking person can make this kind of distinction regarding a lack of evidence for "God" (or at least the difference in the question) and things that are conceptual like clear evidence that there are other people, and that they are capable of thought.

This kind of attack against the conceptual level is evident in almost all of Darren's posts thus far. He dislikes context as well, as we can see in another thread where he mourns over the guard shot by Dagny in Atlas. Whether he knows what he is doing, or whether this a conscious trick he uses to promote his (probably religious or bleeding heart) agenda I don't know. He is intelligent on his own petty level, but he is a monumentally mediocre mind. He is the sort of person you can't reach because he either isn't capable of any kind of legitimate understanding or he won't admit it. He won't deal with concepts. Whether this is because of evasion or some kind of intellectual defect, it doesn't matter. He's worthless and not worth debating.

Are you a ContraAynRander? I just want to know who, or what, I am dealing with.

Faith in the existence of God is my reason for believing in God? Having a reason is not in itself any form of reasoning at all; to imply the contrary is specious. It is not the existence of God that a believer so much fails to demonstrate as the validity of faith itself. Faith in God means faith in faith. The actual arguments for God are much hardier than for the validity--not the existence--of faith as an epistemological process. Drive a stake into this faith crap and all those God arguments crash down. So, will someone step up and explain the validity of faith as a pass-path to knowledge? Can we use this for scientific advancement--make it part of scientific methodology? Here's an easier task: for a good and right philosophy?

--Brant

Is there a philosophical term for considering that existence is without foundation?

Yes.

Ontological nihilism is the radical-sounding thesis that there is nothing at all.

(1) I never pretended that my word use is infallible and precise except for when I have spent the time to fully proof-read and edit my writing for maximum clarity and effect.

After which your word use is infallible and precise? I admire your modesty. All right, I guess I stand corrected: you do not use words with precision, at least not the first time around.

So now that my post has been up for some time and you've had a chance to proof-read and edit your own writing, I'd like to see what infallibly precise word or phrase you would use to substitute for the imprecise word that you spontaneously chose, "blessed."

I rarely have time to do that for things that I post on this site.

I know. That's what I was counting on. It's the fact that the word in question was chosen without any careful filtering on your part that I found interesting -- and relevant.

However, any errors in my composition are easily identified if you are honest enough to look at the entire post rather than pick upon single isolated slips of the tongue,

So the phrase "truly blessed" to describe how you felt toward your fine friends was written in error? It was a slip of the tongue? All right, as I wrote above, I would be very interested to see what word or phrase your proofing and editing have replaced it with. Go ahead. Let's see your infallible precision in action.

(2) I am an atheist principally (but not exclusively) because I have seen no evidence for the existence, now or ever of such a being.

You've also never seen evidence of other minds, other thoughts, other intentions, apart from your own; yet apparently that hasn't turned you into a solipsist. You should be, if you were consistent in applying the test of "seeing is believing." Anyway, your old-fashioned, almost Victorian faith in naive materialism is quite touching. Philosophically, it's the equivalent of walking around in a bowler hat, or wearing formal dress even when dining at home alone.

And I am proficient with a large number of microscopic, spectroscopic, mass spectrometric instrument and genetic and microbiological techniques. I've observed evolution occurring in real time. I've even observed individual atoms when last I used a Scanning Tunneling Microscope.

Shouldn't all this be in your profile? No one asked for a resume.

Not once in the 16-odd years that I've been doing this sort of thing have I seen any evidence of any God/ghost/goblin or any other supernatural being or alternate realms wherein literal angels might dwell.

Interesting. And yet with no prompting from anyone, you went ahead and spontaneously used the word "blessed" to describe a very special sort of relationship you feel you have with some close friends.

You're not going to understand what I'm about to say (arrogant blockhead that you've made yourself into), but you have seen such evidence.

I have heard the Objectivist arguments against God, agreed with them and moved on. When the time comes that someone presents me with evidence that contradicts both those arguments or cannot be explained by science or both, I will re-examine the issue.

(Hint: It isn't found by looking for some material entity through a microscope. Ask those special friends of yours.)

(3) You are deliberately ignoring the secular meaning of the word blessed (see entry 4). "Bringing, or accompanied by, blessing or happiness; pleasurable, joyful, blissful."

That's correct. I deliberately ignored that meaning because, in the context of what you wrote, it was obvious that it wasn't what you meant. You didn't mean that you were "truly happy" to have such friends; you didn't mean you were "truly pleasured" by their company; you didn't mean that your friends made you "blissful." (and I must say, just as an observer, that the image of a big, ugly, sullen, ape such as yourself, being put into a state of "bliss" -- I mean, bliss?? -- is appalling beyond belief. I shall expunge it from my mind immediately.)

This word has been commonly used in the non-secular sense for at least the last 40 years if not longer.

An expert on etymology as well as microscopes? Impressive. However, the original meaning is far older, and therefore far more entrenched in everyday words, expressions, sentiments, thoughts, even perceptions (since I don't believe that perception is done without any admixture of thinking and assumption).

I do not believe that a well-educated person, let alone a financial analyst, would be unaware of this.

Charmed. I accept the compliment though reject the mild rebuke. As explained above, the "secular" meaning was clearly irrelevant to your thoughts about your friends. Even they would be puzzled by its use.

(4) This deliberate deceitful act forms the basis of your thesis.

Charmed again. But see above regarding "rebuke."

(5) The effect, and I suspect the true purpose, of formulating this thesis is to underline and cheapen the appreciation and love I have for those among my friends and loved ones who are religious. It is a transparent attack upon the message I was attempting to convey: that the most important thing to me is not whether folks believe in God or not, but that they are possessed of a strong sense of honor and loyalty as well as a benevolent sense of life.

So . . .? You do not believe that you are "truly blessed" to have fine friends that possess great honor and loyalty and a benevolent sense of life. No. Now you claim they are merely "important" to you.

Try a little experiment. Tell your friends "I used to think that I was truly blessed to count you as my friends. Now, however, after carefully proof-reading and precisely editing my throughts, I see that I was in error, and that it was merely a slip of the tongue. What I really meant to think was that the most important thing to me is not your belief in or skepticism toward God, but your great sense of honor, loyalty, and benevolent sense of life. I assume this change of mind on my part is all right with everyone?"

See what sort of response you get. You might find yourself short a few friends.

(6) I cannot fathom the depth of the malevolence one must draw upon in order to summon the gall to challenge (however obliquely) such a simple and innocuous dictum.

You can fathom it. You're far more deeply malevolent than I am, as any one of your frightening posts will readily prove. However, my "oblique challenge" was based on nothing more than what you probably fear most on this site: a sincere and careful reading of what you actually wrote.

Having set the context, I now give you the abridged version of my answer to your verbose ad hominem:
Go fuck yourself with a telegraph pole you conniving piece reptilian shit.

Words fitly spoken! Nature and nature's God have lavished you with their gifts of eloquence. As it says in the Bible (Proverbs 25:11) regarding words fitly spoken, they are like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

In both talent and intellect, I'm sure you believe yourself to be truly blessed.

Richard -
Is there a philosophical term for considering that existence is without foundation?
I looked up "metaphysical nihilism" but that term is used to describe something else.

Cheers,

Reed

Thanks Robert for the clarification.

Everyone here should agree that at least one premise is false, and therefore that the argument is unsound.

I am an atheist principally (but not exclusively) because I have seen no evidence for the existence, now or ever of such a being.

I have faith that God exists for the same reason.

I could delude myself that I have an argument (not based on faith) for the existence of God, but I'll leave that to you.

the glaring fucking hole in your... God-centered argument

Again, the flaw in your creationism argument (whatever that may be comprised from at this very moment) starts with you proving that a creator existed.

When it comes to God, your options are faith, delusion or atheism. Take your pick.

(1) I never pretended that my word use is infallible and precise except for when I have spent the time to fully proof-read and edit my writing for maximum clarity and effect. I rarely have time to do that for things that I post on this site. However, any errors in my composition are easily identified if you are honest enough to look at the entire post rather than pick upon single isolated slips of the tongue, something that I've seen you do in the other thread. I ignored you then. Read on to find out why I choose not to ignore you this time.

(2) I am an atheist principally (but not exclusively) because I have seen no evidence for the existence, now or ever of such a being. And I am proficient with a large number of microscopic, spectroscopic, mass spectrometric instrument and genetic and microbiological techniques. I've observed evolution occurring in real time. I've even observed individual atoms when last I used a Scanning Tunneling Microscope. Not once in the 16-odd years that I've been doing this sort of thing have I seen any evidence of any God/ghost/goblin or any other supernatural being or alternate realms wherein literal angels might dwell. I have heard the Objectivist arguments against God, agreed with them and moved on. When the time comes that someone presents me with evidence that contradicts both those arguments or cannot be explained by science or both, I will re-examine the issue. Until then, I remain a member of the atheist minority. If an honest, reality based opinion on the matter is sufficient to condemn me to eternity in the sulfurous pits, then so be it. I shall not want for company if that is all it takes to dine with the devil.

(3) You are deliberately ignoring the secular meaning of the word blessed (see entry 4). "Bringing, or accompanied by, blessing or happiness; pleasurable, joyful, blissful." This word has been commonly used in the non-secular sense for at least the last 40 years if not longer. I do not believe that a well-educated person, let alone a financial analyst, would be unaware of this.

(4) This deliberate deceitful act forms the basis of your thesis.

(5) The effect, and I suspect the true purpose, of formulating this thesis is to underline and cheapen the appreciation and love I have for those among my friends and loved ones who are religious. It is a transparent attack upon the message I was attempting to convey: that the most important thing to me is not whether folks believe in God or not, but that they are possessed of a strong sense of honor and loyalty as well as a benevolent sense of life.

(6) I cannot fathom the depth of the malevolence one must draw upon in order to summon the gall to challenge (however obliquely) such a simple and innocuous dictum.

Having set the context, I now give you the abridged version of my answer to your verbose ad hominem:

Go fuck yourself with a telegraph pole you conniving piece reptilian shit.

I love Robert Winefield's little slip-up:

I'm proud, honored and truly blessed to count many such religious people amongst my friends.

Truly what? I thought he was an aglobinist who used words with precision?

He probably just meant that he was "damned lucky" to have such fine friends . . . except that the phrase "damned lucky" doesn't quite convey what one feels and thinks about staunch friends in this old world. All we need do is imagine our friends and consider all they mean to us, and then evaluate the fact of their existence in relation to us by comparing the meaning -- including the emotional effect on us -- of two terms: "Lucky?" or "Blessed?"

Nothing wrong with the word "lucky" but . . . it's so neutral, and worse -- implies that the friendship is defined by the contingency of its initial meeting rather than defined as something that grew from that point on into something more stable, more interesting, and more part of one's life. The initial encounter might have been contingent on chance and lucky events, but the friendship qua friendship? Wouldn't it be more precise to say "A blessed friendship grew out of a lucky encounter."? The initial encounter might have been lucky, but the ensuing friendship? That's blessed.

So I believe Robert when he says that he is "truly blessed" to count such fine religious folk amongst his friends. I find it fascinating that he claims to reject any form of goblinism or goblinist inquiry or goblinist practice . . . yet, in an unguarded, unself-critical moment -- that is, in an un-Objectivist moment -- he naturally (and quite rightly) resorts to goblinesque terminology: "BLESSED." A concept that has no meaning outside of an assumption -- in his case, habitual or unconscious -- of a universe with a Goblin and a normative Goblinesque order.

Even Objectivists can be decent folks when they're not masquerading all the time behind their Ayn Rand masks trying to be Objectivists.

Happy to comply.

Happy to unmoderate.

It occurs to me to point out to you, btw, that while we might indeed infer the existence of men from the existence of man-made objects, it's not necessary, and would be a back-to-front way of proceeding.

That's pretty much how all sciences that deal with the past go about it. Its not back-to-front, but rather present-evidence-to-conjectured-past-causal-agent. And as I pointed out in another post, that's even how Darwinians go about it, so if you count yourself a Darwinian, you have no grounds to object.

We can see men, and point to them—

And what if you can't? Martians land here in the future after a nuclear holocaust. No men to see; no men to point to. The martians find cultural artifacts -- books, computers, movies, ruins of buildings, etc. Try telling a martian he can't reason from the present evidence to a causal agent in the past called "man." Can't argue with a martian.

and that ostensive evidence is enough,

Enough for what? The "ostensive evidence" is the presently perceived artifact; we seek a putative cause of what brought the artifact into existence.

The issue is "inference to the best explanation." If we're convinced that the artifact is both complex and specific enough to reject chance and necessity as having brought it about, then that leaves remaining the one cause we know about that is capable of bringing about highly complex things that also display tight specificity in their parts and in their interrelations.

It doesn't follow from the fact that man-made objects require the existence of men that the universe requires the existence of Gobby.

Certainly not. However it does follow that the existence of something designed requires the prior existence of a designer. That designers exist in no way excludes other causes from existing, too, such as chance and necessity.

You're equivocating from the man-made to the metaphysical.

Nah. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Whether we see design in a museum or in a living organism, design is design (by any other name). We certainly don't have the right to deny that something is designed -- or may have been designed -- just because there were no humans around. Among other things, that would make pointless something like the SETI mission of NASA, which starts out by assuming there were no humans around at the time that a hoped-for (though still undetected) radio signal in space was broadcast by non-human minds. You claim that we first need "ostensive" evidence of such beings (direct sensory contact) before claiming that it's worthwhile to send up a space-craft to listen for them.

You're question-begging in saying in effect that a goblin-designed universe exists, therefore there's a goblin.

I'm saying that many facts about the universe -- the existence of living organisms, for one -- lead to untenable conclusions if we conjecture any other causal agent for them but design. I certainly don't believe it therefore follows that everything in the universe must have been designed. Then again, I don't believe that everything about a particular car was caused by design -- a ding here, a paint scratch there, slight differences in wheel alignment and paint job. Obviously, even in something as humble as a car, the effects of different causes can peacefully coexist. I have no doubt they can do so in the universe at large, too.

If you persist with this fantasy, of course, you also encounter infinite regress. If everything that exists has to be designed, and your goblin exists, who designed it? Who designed the designer of the designer of the designer, etc. ad infinitum?

Doesn't bother me because the infinite regress happens to knuckledragging trousered apes like those in the Objectivist gang, too (they're just too self-involved uncovering "flaws" in one another's psycho-epistemologies to notice); you accept your infiite regress only because it involves a never-ending series of material causes, involving chance and necessity. Obviously, one material cause leading to an effect, which leads to a cause, etc., must continue indefinitely, especially when we start with the present and conceptually move backward in time.

Of course if you try to wiggle out of your infinite regress by assuming your version of a Prime Mover by saying "the material universe always existed; nothing created it; it always was and it always will be" then you grant the same premise the goblinist uses in his argument: Goblin always existed; nothing created Him; He always was and He always will be." Logically, there is zero difference in the form of these premises. The main difference is that your version violates scientific truth: unless you have access to better science, the best, most current science states that NOTHING existed prior to the Big Bang, so you can't claim that "matter always was." The Goblinist version violates nothing, certainly no scientific fact.

You'll be under moderation till you comply.

Happy to comply.

it is a requirement that you include your surname in your personal information... it's the rule here for everyone. You'll be under moderation till you comply.

It's your call, Linz.

But—on pain of inconsistency—you must moderate Whinespiel.

While you are welcome to participate here—the Baades, after all, need all the help they can get—it is a requirement that you include your surname in your personal information. "Darren" is fine as a user name, and will protect you from Google—and maybe even Gobby—but we need to be able to click on it and find out Darren Who? This is not just for Goblians—it's the rule here for everyone. You'll be under moderation till you comply.

It occurs to me to point out to you, btw, that while we might indeed infer the existence of men from the existence of man-made objects, it's not necessary, and would be a back-to-front way of proceeding. We can see men, and point to them—and that ostensive evidence is enough, even if sophist pomowankers claim it isn't. Moreover, to say that man-made objects bespeak men, therefore the universe bespeaks a designing goblin, is a cosmic non-sequitur, equivocation and begging of the question. It doesn't follow from the fact that man-made objects require the existence of men that the universe requires the existence of Gobby. You're equivocating from the man-made to the metaphysical. You're question-begging in saying in effect that a goblin-designed universe exists, therefore there's a goblin. If you persist with this fantasy, of course, you also encounter infinite regress. If everything that exists has to be designed, and your goblin exists, who designed it? Who designed the designer of the designer of the designer, etc. ad infinitum?

You see for God to have designed everything, he must first be shown to have existed in the first place.

Try a little word substition to see how lame this assertion is:

You see, for Homer to have written The Iliad, he must first be shown to have existed in the first place.

Why can't we infer the prior existence of a designing agent by the currently existing fact of a designed thing? We infer the existence of a writer named Homer from the work that remains; we don't start with some prior knowledge of a writer named Homer -- something only his parents and friends would have had -- and then accept the fact that he wrote an epic.

The reasoning process is no different from that of a science like astronomy; e.g., we first observed and accepted as valid the currently existing fact of a red shift; we reasoned backward from that existing fact to a putative prior causal agent -- the Big Bang. Evidence in addition to a red shift has been discovered (cosmic background radiation, etc.) that reinforces the original inference, but it would be absurd to claim that we cannot accept that the Big Bang caused the red shift unless we first showed that it existed in the first place. That's a very Aristotelian notion of science and knowledge-gathering -- i.e., start with logically necessary axioms and then logically deduce how the phenomenon in question could have arisen -- not a modern scientific one. In fact, it was precisely this Aristotelian notion that held back science for centuries. (And that's also why modern science didn't start with the philosophers, who, for the most part, were still completely under the influence of Aristotle by the time of the Renaissance; but it began with non-philosophical practical men -- specifically, Galileo, an engineer -- who had concrete and well-defined problems to solve for the army).

The assertion that a cow cannot have been designed because there's no trademark symbol on it declaring it to be so is as stupid as asserting that a rock, therefore, must be designed, simply because someone chiseled a trademark symbol on it. The existence of a designing agent is one thing; whether or not he advertises or thinks he must protect his intellectual property rights is quite another. And what about the example of discovering a fine violin that had no label in it identifying the maker. Should one therefore assume that something other than a designing intelligence created it?

Finally, if the designer, in fact, does not advertise or attempt to protect his intellectual property rights, by simply not signing his name to his creation -- leaving future investigators with nothing but the created work, such as music or literature -- I don't see how that changes a thing from the standoint of the future investigators. They don't stare blankly at the created thing and then try frantically first to prove the existence of some composer or some writer and then deduce the existence of the created thing they hold in their hands; they start with the created work itself and reason backward from that, inferring the existence of some composer or some writer. And if, as a short-hand tag for identification purposes only, they refer to this composer or writer as "Anonymous", then the designed work is at least prima facie evidence for that designer's prior existence.

There is actually a name for this inferring process in the philosophy of science; it's called Inference to the Best Explanation. See the works of philosopher Peter Lipton.

Continue to post all you like on this thread about this topic, I shall not reply.

You can't help yourself, can you?

'We' presumably means you. Anyone who thinks that you debate anything needs to read the post that heads up this thread.

But thank you for demonstrating with this pathetic riposte that you are indeed the dishonest post-modernist piss-ant that I take you for.

First up: Biology = Science. The root of the word Biology comes from the Greek word for Life (bios) and the Greek word for study (logia).

Second: Premise 2, replace biology with nature and you will have the argument correct.

Third: Correct your conclusion by deleting "in biology."

Fourth: You are missing a third premise that states that reality (nature) is ALL that there is.

Fourth: I didn't give the definition of miracles - your Church did. If you disagree then state your definition.

Fifth: Religious folks do not support the amended version of premise 2 nor my third premise.

Mark -
Robert's argument, as I see it, laid out formally...

1. Miracles are occurrences that can not be explained by science.
2. Everything in biology can be explained by science.
Therefore
3. There are no miracles in biology.

Plus these argument enhancers...

Premise 1 is what God experts think therefore it seems only fair that Premise 1 be accepted by honest religious folk.
Premise 2 is accepted by honest religious folk.

Plus some assertions presumably to support premise 2.

I don't see how honest atheist folks could agree with premise 1 or 2.

Continue to post all you like on this thread about this topic, I shall not reply.

Thank God for that.

Now we can get back to discussing Rand and Darwin.

Cross Posted from the other thread.

Direct Quote: Goode admits that he is a Creationist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2010-04-23 22:20.

God is the Creator, purposive, loving, just, eternal, immutable, omnipresent and supreme."

[Emphasis mine.]

Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2010-04-16 19:55.

"Of course, I have my own conception of God. Everyone does."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Game. Set. Match.

As I stated Goode: You are a creationist who doesn't take the Book of Genesis literally. Again, the flaw in your creationism argument (whatever that may be comprised from at this very moment) starts with you proving that a creator existed.

Continue to post all you like on this thread about this topic, I shall not reply. I've spent all the time I care to expend on this topic and you.

One prediction before I go.

Should Goode decide to reply to this post, he will attempt to shift the goal-posts of the debate or his previous statements (or both) by questioning the accepted definition of the words in the direct statements above or of his statements on this thread. He may even attempt to state that he was merely attempting to disprove 'Objectivist biology' (which you will note is a Strawman of his making) and had no intention of being drawn into a debate on the Origins of the Universe/Life on Earth.

Regardless, he will avoid -- at any cost -- the task of clearly and directly addressing the existence of God or the supernatural.

LOL

Richard -
I read the link at the time and again now.

Can you lay out Hume's argument formally?

Question for you, Reed. Who designed the designer?

Who designed the [ultimate] designer?
What existed before anything existed?
What happened before the beginning?

The above questions are all the same form and are errors.
The questions themselves are contradictions.

...who cynically mutters monosyllables at the back of the classroom, but never actually contributes anything constructive.

That way Goode is convinced he is misunderstood, but never actually does anything about it, because to venture forth with an original idea of his own would be to prick the over-inflated balloon of his own self-loathing.

You see, Goode secretly hates himself. That's why he needs the negative responses. They confirm his own view of himself which he must constantly do battle, and lose.

He is the boy at the back of the classroom, frightened to be exposed for what he really believes himself to be.

You said on some other thread some time ago that Objectivist ethics stipulates that an individual should never initiate force against others.

What was Rand's argument?

As usual, the taken-down pomowanker Baade can't take even a baby-step on its own. Links to this, links to that. Why doesn't it just tell us in its own words what it actually ... erm ... thinks. Thinks? Guess I just answered my own question.

Question for you, Reed. Who designed the designer?

You said on some other thread some time ago that Hume had dealt with the argument from design.

What I said is here. I recommend following the link through to the "Hume on Religion" entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

What was Hume's argument?

Please follow the link. But, just to give you the flavour of Hume's argument,

since nature as a whole resembles an animal or plant even more than it does the products of human artifice, its cause or causes must more closely resemble generation and vegetation.

(From The Sceptical Realism of David Hume by John P. Wright.)

Richard -
You said on some other thread some time ago that Hume had dealt with the argument from design.

What was Hume's argument?

Richard -
IMO AI can't happen because current technology hasn't been designed to support consciousness.

Robert -
Design evidence...

1. The nature of existence is such that life is possible.
2. The existence of life.
3. The nature of existence is such that consciousness is possible.
4. The existence of consciousness.
5. The nature of existence is such that free will is possible.
6. The existence of free will.
7. The nature of existence is such that you are possible.
8. Your existence.

You see for God to have designed everything, he must first be shown to have existed in the first place.
This tactic appears to prevent you from considering the above mentioned apparent design as evidence of God?

Mark -
... the best argument against intelligent design = God that I've read.
I'm not sure what argument you see in Robert's post.

I'm doing my taxes. I don't know how you can stand doing this stuff all the time.

... a stunning, educational thread Robert.

The only thing stunning about Robert's post is his use of the word 'cunt'.

I'm an evolutionist, not a creationist.

Here's what I've said previously on SOLO.

[It's a] fact that man is an animal (a fact which has been common knowledge for nigh on 150 years)

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. Evolution occurs whenever there is replication, heredity, variation and differential fitness.

[E]volution has resulted in a staggering variety of efficient survival machines... [T]his is simply the outcome of natural selection.

I'm an evolutionist because no other explanation of life as we know it seems even remotely plausible.

How can you possibly conclude that I'm a creationist? Of course, I don't expect you to have read and remembered everything I've ever said on SOLO. Even so, how do you come to the conclusion that I'm a creationist? I'm curious. Is it because I believe in God? Well, Charles Darwin qua author of On the Origin of Species believed in God. Do you conclude that Darwin was a creationist?

I don't expect you to have read and remembered everything I've ever said on SOLO, but I do expect you to have read and remembered everything I've said on this thread. An unrealistic expectation?

I realize that the questions that you are proposing are intentionally tangential to the nub of the matter: God vs Evolution.

You realise nothing. Linz proclaims that I've hijacked the thread with my "goblinite agenda". But I haven't hijacked the thread. You have. The thread is titled, "Rand and Darwin", not "God and Darwin". Contra Linz, I don't have a "goblinite agenda". I've stayed on topic. I've pointed out that Rand's understanding of the theory of evolution was poor. I've argued that Rand was either a closet creationist or very much mistaken about human nature.

Goode was suggesting that it is impossible to go from Chimps to Men without god.

No, I've argued that *Rand* was suggesting that it is impossible to go from Pre-humans to Men *with evolution*. According to Rand, we shouldn't even be here. But we are. Man, as conceived by Rand, is an evolutionary chimera.

I'm here to prevent him from convincing his readers, by the shear volume of his postings, that he knows what the fuck he is talking about.

You've convinced this reader that *you* don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Take-down? Give up!

What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism?

Why do so many Objectivists insist on attacking the honesty, integrity, and character of their opponents? Are such attacks an aberration, or is this sort of behavior actually advocated by Objectivism?

Anyone who has had much exposure to the philosophy of Objectivism, or the Objectivist movement, has observed the endless moralizing and condemnation which seems to characterize the philosophy of Objectivism and many of its adherents. People who oppose the philosophy of Objectivism, or who simply espouse ideas at odds with Objectivism, frequently find their character, honesty, and integrity under vicious attack.

People who are the victims of such attacks frequently come away baffled. They cannot understand how their character and honesty can be judged solely by the ideas they have proposed or defended. These personal attacks cause many people to hurriedly back away from Objectivism, and refuse to have anything further to do with it. The victims of such attacks frequently conclude that Objectivism is simply another nutty cult...

The Cult Test

Cults almost invariably have strong contempt for the intellect, human intelligence, and any attempt to think independently. They even use the word "intellectual" as an insult.

The reason for such a strong anti-intellectual bias is simple: critical and analytical thought is very threatening to a cult's precepts. The cult's irrational dogma simply cannot stand up to rational examination, so the intellect is treated with scorn and contempt to try to preclude such examination.

Rather than honestly and intelligently debating with critics, using facts and logic, the cult will resort to low personal attacks on the critic, using name-calling, slander, condescending put-downs, libelous accusations, personal slurs, accusations of bad motives, and casting aspersions on the critic's intelligence and sanity.

One way of testing the cult nature of a group is by challenging the ideology binding the group together. We can discover something about the nature of a group by how well its members tolerate opposition to the ideology that holds the group together. How well do members tolerate difference of opinion, opinion that challenges the very ideological heart of the group?

Members of the cult are like a colony of insects when disturbed. A frenzy of activity and protective measures are executed when core ideologies are challenged. The stronger the evidence challenging the truthfulness of the group ideology, the more likely members of the cult are to [] lash out in a more or less predictable fashion...

Top shelf, as always.

Help me understand what appearance the world might have that would prevent you from imputing its “design” to a goblin.

You aced him Robert

Glad you are finding the time to come and do some serious arsekicking here again.

... a stunning, educational thread Robert.

Your post directly below this on intelligent design has given the best argument against intelligent design = God that I've read. It's being copied and pasted to my diary, and will be pulled out and spread amongst my circle often.

"Does this tactic prevent you from considering apparent design as evidence of God?"

Apparent design?

How is it apparent that any of the outside world around you has been designed?

Have you seen "Made by God(TM)" stenciled on a cow lately?

The experts in the searching for God business (the Pope and his mates) define miracles as being occurrences that cannot be explained by science. Seems only fair that honest religious folks should use the same standards.

The problem for honest religious folks attempting to prove intelligent design is that everything from the Universe to the occurrence of intricate organic machines (hearts, lungs, eyes) can be explained - with physical evidence - without reference to God.

And because of that fact, I don't consider the 'complexity' of life to be evidence of anything other than the complexity of life.

You have to remember that the geological record shows that Earth is 4.54 billion years old. That's a hell of a lot of time. 4.54 billion seconds is the equivalent of 147 years. More than two average human lifetimes.

Most chemical reactions involving DNA take place on a millisecond scale. Taq polymerase builds DNA at a rate of one nucleotide base every 32 milliseconds. That's a measured rate.

Now it only takes a minimum of one misincorporated base to make a mutation that could potentially change a phenotype. That means that every 32 milliseconds there is an opportunity for evolution to occur. In other words, you've just increased the time available for mutations to occur from the equivalent of 2 average human lifetimes to 60 human lifetimes. And that's only assuming one organism being worked on.

How many bacteria can dance on the head of a pin? Several hundred thousand? Any one of them with a chance every 32 milliseconds to develop an mutation that could give them and their progeny a competitive edge. Now we are talking about the equivalent of 6,000,000 average human lifetimes.

And that only covers a surface the size of a pin head. What is the surface area of the planet Earth again? Remember, every nook and cranny of the land and every square-inch of the water and air contains microscopic life forms all requiring DNA to be replicated.

Do you get the idea now? I don't need God to explain the complex life-forms I've got all the time in the world for complex life forms to evolve by trial and lineage-ending error.

Robert -
You see for God to have designed everything, he must first be shown to have existed in the first place.

Does this tactic prevent you from considering apparent design as evidence of God?

Like Christopher Hitchens (see his comments on the topic in The God Delusion), I stand in appreciative awe of the select few Religious folks who have resolved to dedicate themselves to the betterment of Mankind and themselves through voluntary charitable acts or their sense of life -- including the resolution to build a life and relationships founded on self-reliance, self-responsibility, honesty and hard work. For examples see the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, and Danny Thomas, founder of St. Judes Chlidren's Research Hospital.

True, religious folks justify their conclusion with an appeal to the modern, de-fanged version of Christianity etc. as opposed to an atheist philosophy that yields the same recommendations for a happy & fulfilling life. But that matters not to me. I'm proud, honored and truly blessed to count many such religious people amongst my friends.

True, I disagree with their theology. But because all have resolved to practice their religion in a manner that "neither breaks my legs nor picks my pocket" (as Jefferson once opined) we are, by our outlook & actions, equals.

Which is why Goode pisses me off so much. It is apparent to me that on a fundamental level, the man stands for nothing. And if this is true, then I have reason to doubt the firmness of the foundations upon which he has built his professed affection for individual liberty and the like.

Religious folks at least have their faith as a source of spiritual fuel and moral reinforcement. And they can speak convincingly & piously of both their commitment to God and the modern domesticated version of his tenets. In other words, they have concluded that there is virtue to the endeavoring to be consistent in the things you stand for.

Goode struggles to do even that! Yet he does not want for intelligence or even courage given the services he has provided to the Libertarian cause in front of NZ Government committees. It appears to me that this man has no philosophy nor sees any need of it. I suspect that he derives his political ideals with a raised whetted finger and not only sees no fault in that method, but believes it superior to all others and especially the one Rand invented.

Basically, Goode gives the good religious folk a Baade name. To my mind he besmirches their virtues with his pomowanker carry on and this annoys me greatly.

someone nailed it to the wall. Funny, and good Robert.

...Goode is the living embodiment of the Nietzsche quote I posted on Chocolate Box Philosophy yesterday.

Goode in a nutshell