Flat out denial.

[sandwiches]

No, things exist weather we observe them or not, but if there is no mind to observe them then you and I wouldn't be discussing these things. Is this the cream of your objection to the existence of God?

Existence of something is a prerequisite for minds. Minds exist because the stuff they're made of exists. I'm not sure if you're trying assert that it's unsupported to claim that something exists independent of minds since there'd be no way for anything to ponder existence. Is this your way to imagine that a mind must have existed prior to anything else existing, (i.e. God?)

 

[bhsmte]

Indeed. Just making sure that we all keep in mind that the interpretation of data very much IS a subjective thing.

Interpretation of certain facts (like scientific facts) requires education and knowledge on those facts. Just as I would want a trained physician interpreting diagnostic facts about myself, I would rely on scientific experts to properly interpret scientific facts.

 

[True Scotsman]

Its like a kangaroo court of pier review. What was I wrong about? I never said things don't exist I simply made the observation that the context of Rand's philosophy begins somewhere in the middle of a run on sentence. This is why this fringe idea of Rand's is laughed at by serious philosophers.

Things exist, conscious mind observes them, we don't need to be rocket surgeons to do that????

No we don't need to be rocket scientist to do that. But Objectivism does not begin in midstream. We begin at the very beginning with existence and then we go on to formally recognize other implicit and conceptually irreducible fundamental principles. We do that because not explicitly identifying and integrating these facts leads to all sorts of errors such as the problem of induction, the mind/ body dichotomy and fallacious questions like "who created the universe".

The Objectivist axioms are simply formal recognitions of fundamental facts. Its like if we rolled back the tape to the first moments of awareness, what would be our first knowledge. Hey stuff exists. (existence). And hey, I know it (consciousness). And hey, everything that exists is something and only that thing and I can tell one thing from another by this fact (identity) And hey, the stuff that exists doesn't conform to my wishes, likes, dislikes, preferences or tantrums. I want my ball to be made of chocolate but it's still plastic even though I balled up my fists and cried.( the primacy of existence). That's it Colter, that's what the Objectivist axioms are and nothing more. But notice what a profound effect these axioms have on all future knowledge. That is their power. We can check any idea based on these fundamentals and know with certainty that it is false or true such as the concept of gods. This is what you and all your bloggers have rejected. But how did you do that if you don't exist and you are not conscious of things and nothing is anything and nothing is what it is independent of your conscious activity like wanting, desiring or demanding. No matter how much you want the Objectivist axioms and the primacy of existence to be false they will continue to be true. You've backed yourself into a corner you can't get out of. Just admit you were wrong and we can move on. And one more implication of these axioms being true is that my argument works. It proves its conclusion. That's why you have done everything to discredit it except refute it. You can't.

 

[Colter]

Existence of something is a prerequisite for minds. Minds exist because the stuff they're made of exists. I'm not sure if you're trying assert that it's unsupported to claim that something exists independent of minds since there'd be no way for anything to ponder existence. Is this your way to imagine that a mind must have existed prior to anything else existing, (i.e. God?)

Things exist because of the mind of God, the universe is mind made and mind managed. Things exist apart from your mind and my mind. The mater upon which our mind rests as well as the electro-chemical energy which is mind, all preexisted our consciousness and it's ability to opine about things that exist. To say existence exists somehow grants attributes of observation making mind to a mindless primacy.

 

[True Scotsman]

Here are your words

Post # 61


Premise #1
"the primacy of existence principle states that the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity."

Premise #2
"Its opposite, the primacy of consciousness, states that the things that exist do not exist independently of anyone's consciousness and are dependent on consciousness for their existence."

"Premise 1 of my argument is true because a contradiction can't exist. Existence can not both have primacy and not have primacy at the same time."

"Premise two is true because it would have to be true even to deny it."

I guess you stated that "something cannot exist without our consciousness of it." when you state that Premise 2 is "true".

IMO premise 1 is a no brainer..... things do exist whether we are conscious or aware of them....

IMO premise 2 is absurd....Saying that the existence of something depends on consciousness.....


I see the contradiction in these two. However, one is obvious and the other is foolishness.

I still don't get the basis for your statement:
Post #51
"Existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Therefor the Christian God does not exist."

If I translate this philosophical verbiage correctly it states "existence is independent of consciousness"
Which, to me, proves that God can exist as He can exist without people being conscious of Him.

You have confused my explanation of the principle with my argument. Here it is again:

1. If existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness, then the Christian God does not exist. (It is said to have created everything that exists by and act of conscious will, hence the contradiction)

2. Existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness. (things are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity such as perception, feelings, wishing, wanting, desiring, willing)

Therefor the Christian God does not exist

There is nothing in there about the primacy of consciousness except implicitly in the concept of God.

Now do you still claim the argument is not sound? You've already conceded premise 2. So now do you claim that premise one is false because contradictions can exist in reality, i.e., existence can have two contradictory fundamental natures. existence can have primacy and not have primacy at the same time and in the same respect.

I don't actually expect you to agree with me. That's not the point. The point is that I've produced a valid and sound argument and I have vindicated myself from Colter's charge that I am deceiving myself. I have sound, rational reasons for not believing in his God or yours or any of the millions of other versions of the Christian God because existence has primacy.

 

[Colter]

No we don't need to be rocket scientist to do that. But Objectivism does not begin in midstream. We begin at the very beginning with existence and then we go on to formally recognize other implicit and conceptually irreducible fundamental principles. We do that because not explicitly identifying and integrating these facts leads to all sorts of errors such as the problem of induction, the mind/ body dichotomy and fallacious questions like "who created the universe".

The Objectivist axioms are simply formal recognitions of fundamental facts. Its like if we rolled back the tape to the first moments of awareness, what would be our first knowledge. Hey stuff exists. (existence). And hey, I know it (consciousness). And hey, everything that exists is something and only that thing and I can tell one thing from another by this fact (identity) And hey, the stuff that exists doesn't conform to my wishes, likes, dislikes, preferences or tantrums. I want my ball to be made of chocolate but it's still plastic even though I balled up my fists and cried.( the primacy of existence). That's it Colter, that's what the Objectivist axioms are and nothing more. But notice what a profound effect these axioms have on all future knowledge. That is their power. We can check any idea based on these fundamentals and know with certainty that it is false or true such as the concept of gods. This is what you and all your bloggers have rejected. But how did you do that if you don't exist and you are not conscious of things and nothing is anything and nothing is what it is independent of your conscious activity like wanting, desiring or demanding. No matter how much you want the Objectivist axioms and the primacy of existence to be false they will continue to be true. You've backed yourself into a corner you can't get out of. Just admit you were wrong and we can move on. And one more implication of these axioms being true is that my argument works. It proves its conclusion. That's why you have done everything to discredit it except refute it. You can't.

* Fallacy #1 You claim to start at the beginning of existence, no, you are finite and we are billions of years into material existences and completely apart from infinity. You know practically nothing.

* Fallacy #2 You have no facts from the beginning, from the panorama of an unqualified absolute.

* Fallacy #3 You narrow life down to your finite observation and hence claim exclusion of all other possibilities.

Conclusion

Your presumptive, iron clad circular reasoning, doesn't discredit faith, it simply perpetuates your closed mind for the time being.

 

[True Scotsman]

* Fallacy #1 You claim to start at the beginning of existence, no, you are finite and we are billions of years into material existences and completely apart from infinity. You know practically nothing.

False. Another blatant misrepresentation. I said that objectivism starts with the concept "existence" as its philosophical starting point. Not the beginning of existence. The beginning of knowledge. The concept "existence" encompasses everything that exists. It is conceptually irreducible, fundamental, absolutely true, self evident and universal as any good starting point must be. So once again we find you misrepresenting my position.

* Fallacy #2 You have no facts from the beginning, from the panorama of an unqualified absolute.[QUOTE/]

False again. The fact that existence exists is directly observable and absolute. We start our philosophy with this incontestable fact. Again and again if necessary, I'm not talking about the origins of the universe. That is not a philosophical question. It is a question for the special sciences.

* Fallacy #3 You narrow life down to your finite observation and hence claim exclusion of all other possibilities.

Since I'm starting with the widest of all possible concepts, "existence", i.e., everything that exists, this charge is rediculous. We are speaking of the axioms here, not all of Objectivism. It's clear from your attempts to refute these principles that you have no understanding of concepts and the hierarchical nature of knowledge. You ought to fix these deficiencies.

Conclusion

Your presumptive, iron clad circular reasoning, doesn't discredit faith, it simply perpetuates your closed mind for the time being.

Again, I don't think you understand what an axiomatic concept is. Since they identify facts that are perceptually self evident and are not inferred from antecedent concepts, there is no circularity. Circularity is something that applies to deductive arguments. Axioms are not induced nor deduced but simply acknowledged. My argument still stands. Try again.

 

[TillICollapse]

You don't know is faith in action, but it's not a belief in action. I doubt belief actual exists in a real world since you have to use real faculties to determine everything, and they are not believed things but real things. Am I making sense, I feel like my ideas are getting covered in syrup.

"I don't know" is faith in action ? I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. No offense, but I'm not sure what your ideas are covered in. Maybe salad dressing ? Again, no offense.

 

[Colter]

False. Another blatant misrepresentation. I said that objectivism starts with the concept "existence" as its philosophical starting point. Not the beginning of existence. The beginning of knowledge. The concept "existence" encompasses everything that exists. It is conceptually irreducible, fundamental, absolutely true, self evident and universal as any good starting point must be. So once again we find you misrepresenting my position.

The fundamental of existence used to validate or deny other existences would include knowing all that exists. You don't know all that exists. That is a logical fallacy.

You may wish that your facts are uncontestable but that does not make them so.

 

[True Scotsman]

The fundamental of existence used to validate or deny other existences would include knowing all that exists. You don't know all that exists. That is a logical fallacy.

I never claimed that I did. A starting point is just that a starting point of knowledge. At the beginning, all we can say is something exists. We then have to identify what exists and that is an ongoing and never ending process of discovery. The axioms and the primacy of existence play a crucial roll in all future knowledge but Objectivism in no way claims that they are all of knowledge. Try again.

And on the charge of circularity, the argument I presented does not commit this fallacy. Note the "if" at the beginning of the first premise. I pose it as a hypothetical. This is completely valid. I nowhere assume the conclusion in my premises. If you think the argument does this, you need to show how it does this. Please be specific.

 

[estadalamoo]

"I don't know" is faith in action ? I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. No offense, but I'm not sure what your ideas are covered in. Maybe salad dressing ? Again, no offense.

Well yes they were syrupy, faith is just very complex when you analyse it's principles. There's alot it does, and I know maybe 20-30 % how it functions.

One thing I know is that faith is the brains way of dealing with the subjective. This is due to the nature of paradoxical problems, the rational mind can only deal with absolutes. When a rational dilemma occurs faith steps in. And as I was saying faith is not something you believe it's something you know, because it's a real faculty that everyone is born with.

 

[durangodawood]

Right now Colter. Are you seriously suggesting that the statement that existence exists has no objective basis?

Its just a tautology and not even a statement really.

 

[Colter]

"That's it Colter, that's what the Objectivist axioms are and nothing more. But notice what a profound effect these axioms have on all future knowledge. That is their power. We can check any idea based on these fundamentals and know with certainty that it is false or true such as the concept of gods. This is what you and all your bloggers have rejected. But how did you do that if you don't exist and you are not conscious of things and nothing is anything and nothing is what it is independent of your conscious activity like wanting, desiring or demanding.

* There is no power in your axiom because they do not contain the knowledge of all existence as a reference concerning what is true or false. You are confusing axiom for blinder.

 

[True Scotsman]

Its just a tautology and not even a statement really.

Aren't all truths in essence tautologies. Tautologies which refer to reality are true. I could phrase it another way. I could say things exist. I could say whatever exists is real. Would that be better? If saying a rock exists is a statement then why would saying that everything as a whole exists not also be a statement. That's what the concept "existence" refers to. Everything that exists.

 

[True Scotsman]

* There is no power in your axiom because they do not contain the knowledge of all existence as a reference concerning what is true or false. You are confusing axiom for blinder.

So you expect a Human mind to begin with omniscience as its starting point and if we don't have this we are blind. That's fantastic.

You only claim to have such a starting point and in case you didn't notice I've blown it out of the water with the argument which you still have not been able to refute. When you claim that "there is no power in your axioms because they do not contain the knowledge of all existence" You are using the principle of the primacy of existence in making this claim. Because I'm sure you are not saying that this is true because you want it to be true. You have just performatively conceded my argument. You're done. Now if you are honest, and I sure hope you are, then you will apologize for calling me a self deceiver.

So let me ask you formally. Is what you said above true because you want it to be? If you answer no then you concede my argument. The only option left for you is to answer yes true scotsman, it's true because I want it to be true. Look at the corner you have painted yourself into. That's your problem to work out.

 

[durangodawood]

....That's what the concept "existence" refers to. Everything that exists.

Right.

So you are saying: everything that exists, exists.

Thats not even a statement.

 

[True Scotsman]

Right.

So you are saying: everything that exists, exists.

Thats not even a statement.

How is it not a statement. a statement recognizing a fact of reality is not a statement? If I say a rock exists is that not a statement? If I say rocks, trees, waterfalls, bees, bananas, icecicles and everything else that exists, exists, how am I not making a statement? Please explain.

 

[durangodawood]

How is it not a statement. a statement recognizing a fact of reality is not a statement? If I say a rock exists is that not a statement? If I say rocks, trees, waterfalls, bees, bananas, icecicles and everything else that exists, exists, how am I not making a statement? Please explain.

1. your 'statement' is: existence exists.
2. you add that "existence" means "everything that exists.
so
Your statement actually says nothing. Its like saying that "2 is 2" amounts to a "statement". But it says nothing at all. You might as well just say "2", which carries no less meaning than "2 is 2".

 

[True Scotsman]

1. your 'statement' is: existence exists.
2. you add that "existence" means "everything that exists.
so
Your statement actually says nothing. Its like saying that "2 is 2" amounts to a "statement". But it says nothing at all. You might as well just say "2", which carries no less meaning than "2 is 2".

Is it true that the things which exist in fact exist?

 

[Colter]

So you expect a Human mind to begin with omniscience as its starting point and if we don't have this we are blind. That's fantastic.

You only claim to have such a starting point and in case you didn't notice I've blown it out of the water with the argument which you still have not been able to refute. When you claim that "there is no power in your axioms because they do not contain the knowledge of all existence" You are using the principle of the primacy of existence in making this claim. Because I'm sure you are not saying that this is true because you want it to be true. You have just performatively conceded my argument. You're done. Now if you are honest, and I sure hope you are, then you will apologize for calling me a self deceiver.

So let me ask you formally. Is what you said above true because you want it to be? If you answer no then you concede my argument. The only option left for you is to answer yes true scotsman, it's true because I want it to be true. Look at the corner you have painted yourself into. That's your problem to work out.

Again:

"That's it Colter, that's what the Objectivist axioms are and nothing more. But notice what a profound effect these axioms have on all future knowledge. That is their power. We can check any idea based on these fundamentals and know with certainty that it is false or true such as the concept of gods. This is what you and all your bloggers have rejected. But how did you do that if you don't exist and you are not conscious of things and nothing is anything and nothing is what it is independent of your conscious activity like wanting, desiring or demanding.

By default you are claiming that inherent in this purported power of your axiom is it's own omniscience. I have never claimed that man has or can have omniscience. I stated that things (effects) exit, that is obvious to consciousness which itself is an effect. There are a great many effects that man has not yet discovered. God holds primacy, his effects exist regardless of our discovery of them or consciousness of them. We don't make the fundament things, we discover them. We don't make truth, we discover it.