fallacy analysis needed "faulty" Big bang article

[caspernl]

Sorry my edit button is not working, probably cause i used it to much.

Any ways i wanted to add that i find it ironic you see Ayn Rands philosophy as proof of your whole thinking.Her whole thinking is by no means proven. If your whole belief in atheism is based on this i dont see how you could have fallen from your faith, unless you had blind faith that was unfounded.You should have gone to a church that encouraged you to look for answers to your question.Not one where the minister said that you should just have faith and not ask questions.

There is no proof of objectivist metaphysics, just crazy assumptions and ignorant statements.
Factually i can say that objectivist metaphysics is just as "arbitrary" as statements about God.
Since it requires faith to believe it.Objectivist metaphysics is worse cause it has no proof what so ever.

I would like to clarify why i opted out of discussing with you and said i want to get back to the task at hand is purely because you are to blind to see your belief system is based on arbitrary things.Not because i was afraid of your argumentation.Discussing with you is useless because everything against your ayn rand inspired view of consciousness is wiped of the table as irrational and arbitrary.You know this is true yet you choose to ignore it when i say this.Since i dont think you ever going to admit these beliefs you hold are arbitrary themself its useless to argue with you.YOu hold a different standard of your views as to the views opposed to your view. This is the definition of an argument from ignorance.Thus arguing you is then useless for me.The bible warns me of discussing with people like you NOT because we are ignorant of the truth but because you are ignorant of the truth.I have admitted the whole time there is no 100% proof of my belief yet you stubbornly want to hold you views as just that.YOu even want to degenerate belief in God as a fallacy. This might be so but only in your arbitrary ayn rand belief of consciousness.Some honest atheist will discuss in an honest way.If you have proof of this view pleas give it to me because i told you already the burden of proof is on the plaintiff ( and thats you in this case).

Its funny you parrot her world view on things, and then recommend me her book so that i can understand what you are talking about is true. This is circular reasoning. You atheists are so up in arms when uninformed Christians do this. But when you do it it is ok.That Sir is holding a double standard.

What your left with is making ad hominem attacks on me, like you did in your last post. You state you know why i believe.This is a blatant lie.Because you cannot know what i think about. People speaking with a lying tongue are usually not to concerned about the truth.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Thank you for your post, its kind off a breath of fresh air in this partially failed topic.
You seem honest and i would like to ask you some things about your post.

Thanks! Hopefully it leads to a good discussion.

Ill be honest in that i dont believe the big bang to be true, and i do believe that God is an uncaused being.
Its not a empty unfounded claim but its an assessment of the bible.
Feel free to comment about this.

The fallacy is you're begging the question and engaging in circular reasoning. I'll explain:

The bible is where we get all of our information about your god. Basically, the claims that are made about your god are ultimately rooted in the bible. Because of that, you can't use the bible to prove your case.

To say it another way, the biblical story is the claim, and therefore you can't use the bible to prove the bible, that's the circular reasoning. You need an independent source to corroborate what the bible says and claims.

The begging the question (otherwise known as assuming the conclusion) is due to the fact you are assuming the bible is true without that corroborating evidence.

But besides this i do not see that it is a fallacy to believe that God is the uncaused cause of the big bang (which again i dont believe).

Assuming all things that begin to exist need a cause, if your god began to exist he also needs a cause. To assert he doesn't is special pleading.

Or,

If you're going with the William Lane Craig route in that god is eternal and didn't begin to exist, then you're begging the question again by assuming the conclusion without justification.

How can he demonstrate that god never began to exist, but exists now? If that can't be demonstrated, then it is an unjustified claim.

I agree with this in respect that you can state for a fact. And i cannot state for a fact that God is the cause of the universe. But i can state i believe God is the uncaused cause.
Would you agree that this is not a fallacy?

Unless you have some further evidence you haven't mentioned yet, what I wrote above applies here as well.

What i am getting at is that personal belief is not a fallacy if it is not proven to be true.

You can certainly have fallacious beliefs. In fact almost every fallacious belief is false.

I say almost because it's possible your fallacious belief could be right out of pure luck, its just that you reached your conclusion for bad reasons. However, that's not very common.

Regardless, if you believe something that has not been demonstrated to be true, then you have an unjustified belief in any case.

I think Dr Craig is not making a claim, i think his thinking is based on the bible's description of what God is. I am not thinking he is pulling this out of nowhere just as a "Cop out" so to speak.He never says that kalam proves there to be a God.He just says that his argument is correct.

Well, actually he is making a claim that his argument is true. His argument is that the god of the bible created the universe.

the premises are:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist

Therefore

3) The universe has a cause

If the premises are correct (which is actually questionable), then the conclusion is correct. Even if we grant that this part is correct however, Craig then tries to define what that cause is without proper justification. That's where he goes wrong, for the reasons I listed above.

And he believes the Big bang whitin this argument needs a cause outside itself which i agree with.

That part is actually unclear. The law of cause and effect generally applies to things within the universe, but we don't know for certain if it applies to all things. For example, virtual particles are a particle/antiparticle pair that pops into existence out of literally nothing, and quickly annihilating each other on very fast timescales.

These particles are actually responsible for most of the mass of any object we know of, including yourself. Another reason we know these particles exist is due to Hawking Radiation being emitted from black holes. Basically what happens there is when particle/antiparticle pairs appear on the event horizon of a black hole, the particle with negative charge will fall into the black hole, and the positively charged particle will escape. That effect causes the black hole to eventually evaporate away.

These particles are constantly popping in and out of existence from literally nothing, and we can't identify a cause for why they do that. It should be noted that doesn't mean there isn't a cause, but there is no apparent one that we can identify.

Secondly, even if it turns out the law of cause and effect holds true for everything in the universe, that doesn't mean it applies to the universe itself. For example, the speed of light is generally regarded as the fastest you can travel within space. However, space itself can expand faster than light without a problem.

Basically, the point is the laws that govern how things work within the universe might not apply to the universe as an entity itself. Cause and effect is a necessarily temporal law, however if time itself started with the big bang, then whatever its cause is may not have been working under the same temporal rules we do, if at all. We simply don't know.

SO i agree that God lies outside kalams argument.But i think that the argument is underpinned by the claim that nothing cannot create something.Which i believe to be true.

Well, as I highlighted above, at least at the quantum scale of physics, we see something coming from nothing all the time. At the macroscopic level (i.e. the physical scale that we live in) that's not readily apparent, but we can measure it, we do know it happens.

I then believe that God is the uncaused cause. WHy would this be a fallacy? Again it is an unproven statement. But i dont see anyway this could be a fallacy.

As I stated above, the only source material for the god you worship are the Jewish and Christian scriptures. However, you're also attempting to use that same source to prove your claim that your god exists. That's circular reasoning.

Said plainly: "The bible tells us all about this god I believe in, and it must be true because the bible says so".

Furthermore, believing that god is the uncaused cause is begging the question, or assuming the conclusion. There is no actual justification to make that claim, people like William Lane Craig are just throwing these attributes at this god character, essentially to try to define his god into existence. It just doesn't work.

Im sorry for being so specific but i am just interested in logical fallacy's.

Not a problem at all!

So i am saying that an argument for ignorance is only this when there is ignorance involved.I was making a statement that a poster here argued from ignorance because he wiped my arguments of the table as hypothetical but he started the conversation upon an argument based on hypotheticals.I tried to help him somewhat to start about Kalam.

I haven't read most of the thread, so I can't say one way or the other. However, an argument from ignorance is basically what happens when someone asserts something is true just because it hasn't been proven false.

For example "my god is real, and I'm justified in believing that until you prove it wrong" is an argument from ignorance fallacy (and a shifting of the burden of proof). The correct time to believe a claim is after the evidence has demonstrated it to be true. The only honest position to take until the evidence is in is to say you don't know, and keep looking for more evidence.

So i am not claiming Kalams argument necessitates a God. But i believe this is the best explanation.

Why?

And on the special pleading fallacy, its not special pleading its just a hypothetical argument.

Hypothetical arguments can still be fallacious

The validity of the argument he makes doesn’t rest on special pleading. He again doesnt try to go around Kalams argument he just explains the biblical view of God lies within the validity of Kalams argument.

It may interest you to learn a bit of the history about the Kalam argument, and one demonstration of why it's not very good.

I've noticed you've said "Kalam's argument" a few times so far, as if Kalam was the guy who invented the argument. That's not the case.

Kalam is actually an Arabic word, and it's taken from the phrase "Ilm al-Kalam", which means "science of discourse" in English. Kalam is (taken from wikipedia) "an Islamic science born out of the need to establish and defend the tenets of Islamic faith against doubters and detractors."

Here's a brief rundown: Ilm al-Kalam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, to make a long story short, the Kalam cosmological argument was originally invented by the Muslims to prove the existence of Allah. Christian apologists like William Lane Craig hijacked it, swapped out holy books and use the same argument to prove the existence of the Christian god.

The problem is, you can plug in any holy book you want, and use the argument to "prove" the existence of any deity you want. If you use the Bhagavad Gita, you can "prove" the existence of Lord Brahma, etc.

This exposes the critical flaw in the argument, you have no justification to assert your god is the right one, it's completely arbitrary. If you can use the argument to "prove" the existence of any god you want to, then in reality you can't actually use the argument to prove any god at all.

Based on the premises of the argument (assuming the premises are correct), the furthest you can get is the universe has a cause. Labelling that cause as intelligent, all powerful, timeless, etc are also completely arbitrary attributes that are added in without justification from your favourite holy book... and we can see why picking an arbitrary holy book doesn't work above.

The only way you can justifiably attach those attributes is if you first demonstrate your holy book to be true.... however, if you've already proven the bible to be true, then you don't need the Kalam to prove the existence of your god, so it's ultimately an irrelevant argument at best.

Saying the big bang came out of nothing does not. Maybe the distinction here is impossibility’s and hypotheticals.

Nobody says the big bang came out of nothing, we don't know what sparked the big bang. If there is a multiverse for example (which is very plausible, if not probable given our current evidence), then the big bang didn't come from nothing.

You say that we can prove that the big bang happened.Pleas present that proof. Im not trying to attack you on this but this statement begs for proof.

You cant prove it happened at all. Unless of course you have that proof.

Ill await your response, because i am very interested in your reactions. In the meantime have a nice holiday time.

Absolutely, I made a claim and therefore I have the burden of proof to back my words.

The evidence that points to the big bang come from a variety of different sources. For example, we can measure the hubble expansion of the universe. The predicted elemental abundances of the universe in the big bang model line up exactly with the observed abundances. The smoking gun for the big bang model is the observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation however, which provides us with a look at the very early universe.

Those examples are just off the top of my head, there are a few more though. The main point is however is that there is a number of separate sources of observable and measurable evidence, and all of that evidence points to the big bang model.

Can I ask why you don't accept the big bang model?


Also, have yourself a merry christmas as well!

 

[caspernl]

I agree with you that in kalams argument that there is nothing in it that proves there is a God.

I must say that i dont know who Kalam is i just know the argument, i know that christians sometimes alter the argument. But Kalams argument is valid as far as i know. I have seen some objections but they never panned out. The argument states that everything that had a beginning needs a cause. The universe according to the big bang theory had a beginning.Thus it needs a cause. Since there can be no infinite cause and effect regression. It necessitates an uncaused cause. a cause whitout beginning.This is a necessity. I can stick my belief to this cause which is as you say not justified but i dont see that has anything to do with anything. I dont see how it is bias to believe what you believe..The argument stil needs an uncaused cause.
I agree that a multiverse is also valid. But because everything like you say is hypothetical. The argument does not proof there is a God.

Let me be very clear i am not saying i can proof God exist, nor am i saying that Kalams argument proves this.
And i am not plugging the bible or trying to prove the God of Abraham and Isaak exists, i dont even care for proving this.
And the fact i believe the bible is not based on the bible its based on things i see in this world.

The fact that when one observes Kalams argument the God as described in the bible fits in it as an uncaused cause.This does not prove anything except that whitin the argument God of abraham and isaak does work.
This is not special pleading because i am not changing Gods characteristics to meet Kalams argument.That would be special pleading.

I also agree that hypothetical arguments can be fallacy’s, but not every hypothetical argument is fallacious.

That part is actually unclear. The law of cause and effect generally applies to things within the universe, but we don't know for certain if it applies to all things. For example, virtual particles are a particle/antiparticle pair that pops into existence out of literally nothing, and quickly annihilating each other on very fast timescales.

If i am correct you are referring to quantum fluctuation, this theory does not say that something comes from nothing. It is just going from one state to another. Hence the name fluctuation. You need something to begin with. So virtual particles are a bit misleading. Also there is no proof of this theory.It has never been observed.

The evidence that points to the big bang come from a variety of different sources. For example, we can measure the hubble expansion of the universe. The predicted elemental abundances of the universe in the big bang model line up exactly with the observed abundances. The smoking gun for the big bang model is the observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation however, which provides us with a look at the very early universe.

Correct me if i am wrong but the hubble law is red shift and blue shift. Red shift is assumed to be showing galaxys are moving away from us or with blue shift ( in our milkyway) going towards us.

This discovery is the basis of the Big bang model, around the time of hubble there was a steady state model.Red shifts is theorised to be a sort of doppler effect.There is no proof of this.It is assumed to be like this.
To me this is no proof that supports the Big Bang model.

The big bang model had the horizon problem at some point, to solve this the inflation theory was developed (ad hoc)( actually 50+ theorys of inflation).In the beginning moments of the big bang there was a faster expansion, then this slowed down to a slower expansion.This to account for the uniform temperature in space.
To me this is a total retrofit to meet the obeserved data.

The CMBR is no proof of inflation, there is allot of problems with the assumption this shows radiation left from the inflation period. After measurements done this year of BICEP2 allot of secular scientists actually believe that the CMBR could actually be spacedust from our own galaxy.Dust can emit microwaves that mimic this polarization pattern, and it is possible that this dust is responsible for most (if not all) of this signal.
Again this is no proof to me.

If you look at the big bang, allot of ad hoc solutions have been made.And things hailed as proof are not proof at all.
Things measured don’t point to the Big Bang, the model is actually changed to fit the measurements.
There is allot of reasons why i dont believe the big bang happened, mostly because of the ad hoc changes made to fit measurements,

The evolution of stars is never been observed, it is assumed that surten starts formed and exploded and then formed different stars,To account for matter in space.Fully hypothetical and ad hoc.

Also the fact that theoretical physics cannot be proven. the c factor for instance is by no means proven its just a factor that seems to work with observations.
Photons are theorised to have no mass at rest but have mass at speeds.
This is never been proven neither.

Einstein i believe once was asked how it felt to be the smartest man on earth, he said i dont know ask Nikola Tesla. Nikola Tesla when asked what he thought about Einsteins theory he said that he didnt find anything of it because it was to difficult to get.
Its like an argument from verbosity in my view, based on hypotheticals.

To me people like Hawking lived a live of "regurgitation and praise", he learned what he had to in school and never actually started critically thinking.
The fact that he is believing in a multi verse and aliens tell me he is even willing to go to the extreme of hypothetical.
Dark matter to me is an insane ad hoc invention to keep the model afloat.Even when you assume there is dark matter. The current model cannot even account for all the dark matter needed.The science you believe is theoretical science and is always based on assumptions of data.This is by no means provable.
I have allot of reasons why i dont believe in the big bang but this is a bit of an overview.

The fact you believe virtual particles show something comes from nothing shows me you are somewhat hypocritical ( no offence) in your thinking since you present it as proven. And since you present it as something coming from nothing when nothing does not really mean nothing. Its a bit of a bait and switch.Your extremely critical view of my belief because it deals with hypotheticals is completely lost when you talk about your own beliefs.If this is not true please correct me i dont mean any offence.

Also for me the evolution theory proposed by Darwin is laughable, the fact that dead things become alive is explained by a soviet theory of abiogenesis is also ridiculous.
The fact that the theory had allot of help from people like Karl Marx just shows me it is big because it has been pushed on us.There is no proof of any of the two theory’s what so ever. For example the embro drawings in biology books that supposedly show how people look like fish are a complete fraud done by Ernst Haeckel. This to me shows how people are indoctrinated with things hailed as proven but really aren’t that.

I must say i am a bit tired of discussing because of the first couple of pages, I wasn’t really interested in this proving my belief or disproving the big bang. I just wanted to discuss the article outlined in my first post.But its unfair to stop discussing with you so i dont mean that at all.

Edit:

I haven't read most of the thread, so I can't say one way or the other. However, an argument from ignorance is basically what happens when someone asserts something is true just because it hasn't been proven false.

THats correct

For example "my god is real, and I'm justified in believing that until you prove it wrong" is an argument from ignorance fallacy (and a shifting of the burden of proof). The correct time to believe a claim is after the evidence has demonstrated it to be true. The only honest position to take until the evidence is in is to say you don't know, and keep looking for more evidence.

I dont really know what you mean with being justified, i propose that anybody is free to believe whatever one likes.
I cant make the statement that my belief is proven true so if you mean that by "my god is real" i would say you are right.But being justified has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that everything takes belief. Nothing is demonstrated to be a 100% true. I hold that you believe the big bang is true but you do not have proof for it.
You have reasons to believe it really happened but unless there is a 100% proof you claim you cannot believe anything.
I do not hold it to be true that unless something is proven true i cannot believe it. Maybe you can clarify this because to me it seems just odd.And again hypocritical with respect to your belief that the Big Bang is real.
Saying it is proven because of red shift and the cmbr is actually holding a double standard because this hardly (even your assumptions on this would be true) constitutes 100% proof.So you are actually the one that is making this fallacy when you claim the big bang is proven. If you say then you dont know then thats fine. i also dont know what is true. I just believe God to exist, which is justified because i am not making any claims on reality just on my own free choice of belief. Iam justified to believe whatever i want.

I think saying: "my god is real, and he is real until you can prove it not to be real." would be an argument from ignorance.
Your example is not because the argument you propose does not make the fallacy you claim it is making.You injected "justified" and "belief" which are arbitrary words in this argument since the person making the argument is justified to even believe it to be true even if you prove it wrong for the sheer fact that you dont have any claim on his belief.

 

[Sean Robson]

No i dont catch your drift. Learn Kalams cosmological argument correctly before you start commenting on it.

The KCA is very simple, what exactly am I missing?

 

[caspernl]

The KCA is very simple, what exactly am I missing?

Everything that begins to exist necessitates a cause.

If it is so simple pleas tell me why you misrepresented it?
Talking about "catching my drift" is arbitrary.

 

[Sean Robson]

If it is so simple pleas tell me why you misrepresented it?
Talking about "catching my drift" is arbitrary.

Misrepresenting it? I wasn't even presenting it.

Obviously you didn't catch my drift.

Are you just distracting from WLC special pleading?

 

[caspernl]

Misrepresenting it? I wasn't even presenting it.

Obviously you didn't catch my drift.

Are you just distracting from WLC special pleading?

Yes sure i am

 

[Sean Robson]

Yes sure i am

Are we on two different pages or are you just being difficult?

 

[Conscious Z]

You want to know the number one indicator that someone doesn't actually know anything about real philosophy?

They follow Ayn Rand.

There probably isn't a single actual working philosopher alive who takes her work seriously.

 

[caspernl]

You want to know the number one indicator that someone doesn't actually know anything about real philosophy?

They follow Ayn Rand.

There probably isn't a single actual working philosopher alive who takes her work seriously.

Could you elaborate on why that is?
Also would you be willing to share your opinion on her work compaired to real philosophy?

To me it seems that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher at all, since her objectivism is just her set of thoughts on reality. So i think its save to say its her opinion.

I am not advanced in philosophy but it seems to me that philosophy is trying to come to truth or logic idea's via a thinking process and then condensing this process in statements.

Ayn Rand in my view just bypasses all the work done by philosophers because she holds her ideas as truth and anything opposing that as false per-se.
Maybe you have some insight for me on this.
(pardon me for the typos)

 

[True Scotsman]

Sorry my edit button is not working, probably cause i used it to much.

Any ways i wanted to add that i find it ironic you see Ayn Rands philosophy as proof of your whole thinking.Her whole thinking is by no means proven. If your whole belief in atheism is based on this i dont see how you could have fallen from your faith, unless you had blind faith that was unfounded.You should have gone to a church that encouraged you to look for answers to your question.Not one where the minister said that you should just have faith and not ask questions.

There is no proof of objectivist metaphysics, just crazy assumptions and ignorant statements.
Factually i can say that objectivist metaphysics is just as "arbitrary" as statements about God.
Since it requires faith to believe it.Objectivist metaphysics is worse cause it has no proof what so ever.

I would like to clarify why i opted out of discussing with you and said i want to get back to the task at hand is purely because you are to blind to see your belief system is based on arbitrary things.Not because i was afraid of your argumentation.Discussing with you is useless because everything against your ayn rand inspired view of consciousness is wiped of the table as irrational and arbitrary.You know this is true yet you choose to ignore it when i say this.Since i dont think you ever going to admit these beliefs you hold are arbitrary themself its useless to argue with you.YOu hold a different standard of your views as to the views opposed to your view. This is the definition of an argument from ignorance.Thus arguing you is then useless for me.The bible warns me of discussing with people like you NOT because we are ignorant of the truth but because you are ignorant of the truth.I have admitted the whole time there is no 100% proof of my belief yet you stubbornly want to hold you views as just that.YOu even want to degenerate belief in God as a fallacy. This might be so but only in your arbitrary ayn rand belief of consciousness.Some honest atheist will discuss in an honest way.If you have proof of this view pleas give it to me because i told you already the burden of proof is on the plaintiff ( and thats you in this case).

Its funny you parrot her world view on things, and then recommend me her book so that i can understand what you are talking about is true. This is circular reasoning. You atheists are so up in arms when uninformed Christians do this. But when you do it it is ok.That Sir is holding a double standard.

What your left with is making ad hominem attacks on me, like you did in your last post. You state you know why i believe.This is a blatant lie.Because you cannot know what i think about. People speaking with a lying tongue are usually not to concerned about the truth.

You can not possibly disagree with the Objectivist metaphysics since you don't exist and you are conscious of nothing.

 

[Conscious Z]

Could you elaborate on why that is?
Also would you be willing to share your opinion on her work compaired to real philosophy?

To me it seems that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher at all, since her objectivism is just her set of thoughts on reality. So i think its save to say its her opinion.

I'm going to copy and paste a couple things I said on this topic in another thread to True Scotsman:

Rand's philosophy is pretend philosophy. It features enough references to real philosophy to make someone who doesn't know the difference feel as though he's reading some great and important work.

The death of objectivism is her moral claim that self-interest is some morally compelling virtue. It isn't. It is one thing to say that a state should keep its hands off because it has no justification for limiting the rights of its citizens (still dubious, but far less dubious), but it is something entirely different to say that I am morally compelled to act in a way that places my interests above all others. This flies in the face of countless other moral intuitions we hold deeply and moral propositions we would likely agree are true. It isn't hard to think up thought experiments that would make any objectivist either retreat from their position or commit to taking absurdly selfish actions.


Rand's work hasn't really been taken seriously by philosophers for several reasons (in my opinion). First, she hit a huge range of topics in a relatively small volume of work. This was done at the expense of placing her arguments in the context of existing thought and paying attention to the nuance that characterizes philosophy today. That might be forgivable on its own, but she also made some mass leaps in logic and drew some obviously false conclusions (such as the idea that self-interest is morally obligatory).

That would be enough to disqualify her from being a real philosopher. She's more than that, though. She's like the Tim Tebow of philosophy because she is adored by millions of people who don't know a single thing about philosophy. They are compelled by her arguments because they fit in with their socio-political view of the world, and they have never read or understood well-articulated philosophical positions that disagree with virtually everything she ever said. That makes her especially despicable to real philosophers.

 

[caspernl]

I'm going to copy and paste a couple things I said on this topic in another thread to True Scotsman:

Rand's philosophy is pretend philosophy. It features enough references to real philosophy to make someone who doesn't know the difference feel as though he's reading some great and important work.

The death of objectivism is her moral claim that self-interest is some morally compelling virtue. It isn't. It is one thing to say that a state should keep its hands off because it has no justification for limiting the rights of its citizens (still dubious, but far less dubious), but it is something entirely different to say that I am morally compelled to act in a way that places my interests above all others. This flies in the face of countless other moral intuitions we hold deeply and moral propositions we would likely agree are true. It isn't hard to think up thought experiments that would make any objectivist either retreat from their position or commit to taking absurdly selfish actions.


Rand's work hasn't really been taken seriously by philosophers for several reasons (in my opinion). First, she hit a huge range of topics in a relatively small volume of work. This was done at the expense of placing her arguments in the context of existing thought and paying attention to the nuance that characterizes philosophy today. That might be forgivable on its own, but she also made some mass leaps in logic and drew some obviously false conclusions (such as the idea that self-interest is morally obligatory).

That would be enough to disqualify her from being a real philosopher. She's more than that, though. She's like the Tim Tebow of philosophy because she is adored by millions of people who don't know a single thing about philosophy. They are compelled by her arguments because they fit in with their socio-political view of the world, and they have never read or understood well-articulated philosophical positions that disagree with virtually everything she ever said. That makes her especially despicable to real philosophers.

Thanks allot for that, its helpful to see your explanation of this !

 

[caspernl]

You can not possibly disagree with the Objectivist metaphysics since you don't exist and you are conscious of nothing.

According to your objectivist metaphysical view.Which is arbitrary.So all you say becomes arbitrary.