Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[Guisslapp]

^Objectivism is very simple, it is the systematic elimination of irrational constructs which takes time.

[Abominable Gorilla]

I don't think this debate necessarily has to do with time. To ask for an origin, you are presupposing a timeframe, not the other way around. For what it is worth, I think of time as nothing but a measurement between points.

This debate does have to do with "time" in my opinion, because the basis of the debate is origin. I'm not trying to be a jerk as I can sometimes come across, so I apologize if it seems that way, but I note that two of Guisslapp's points deal with precedence in time. I agree the quest for origin presupposes a timeframe, but I disagree on the validity presupposing that timeframe.

(2) It would be philosophically impossible for a consciousness to precede existence. A consciousness must be aware of SOMETHING - and it cannot only be aware of itself. For a consciousness to be aware of itself it must first recongize some object of existence, then it can recognize its "recognition" of the object (thus recognizing its consciousness).
(3) To create existence one must have knowledge of the objects one is creating. If existence did not precede consciousness, one would not have knowledge of anything to create existence with.

As one who believes in a Creator, I do not believe that it would really be correct to say that the Creator "preceded" time. There are four measurements, distance, time, mass, and temperature (methinks there is another one that deals with magnetics or something). Those that believe in a Creator do not have to be concerned with the debate of a God that precedes existance because it is easy to believe that time is simply another portion of creation, just like mass, and that God existed before time. If God created a rock, a mass, then why is it difficult to belief that he created time? This is sometimes strange to explain to people because people can exist in a condition of no rock, but cannot exist in a condition of no time.

If you consider Revelation, God is telling the future. Is that because God determines what will happen or because God knows what will happen? The latter suggests that God exists simultaneously in all time, thus making time irrevelant. When the measurement of "time" is removed, then the question of "when" things were created ceases to exist.

Naturally, I understand that these things will in no way affect your beliefs, because the entire argument starts with the faith in a Creator. My reasons for such faith are an entirely different topic. I'm just meaning to explain to you why your arguments don't really affect those that believe in God. It isn't a "stupidity."

I would concede in your argument that creation itself doesn't prove a Creator. That's why we've named it faith rather than logic. In the same breath, a car doesn't prove

[Guisslapp]

Those that believe in a Creator do not have to be concerned with the debate of a God that precedes existance because it is easy to believe that time is simply another portion of creation, just like mass, and that God existed before time. If God created a rock, a mass, then why is it difficult to belief that he created time? This is sometimes strange to explain to people because people can exist in a condition of no rock, but cannot exist in a condition of no time.

God cannot exist BEFORE time. If he created "time" he could not be "before time" (because "before" is a measurement of time).

[Abominable Gorilla]

God cannot exist BEFORE time. If he created "time" he could not be "before time" (because "before" is a measurement of time).

Yeah, I don't really know how to word it, but I really think you understand what I mean. God created "time" from an existance without time.

[Guisslapp]

^I would love to hear more about this hypothetical space-time condition which God existed in. I would also like to know about how it is theoretically possible that a deity could have knowledge to create the objects of existence without experiencing and perceiving concrete forms of existence.

[saltydawg]

^Objectivism is very simple, it is the systematic elimination of irrational constructs which takes time.

You would be surprised by the number of people who believe in irrational beliefs.

[Guisslapp]

You would be surprised by the number of people who believe in irrational beliefs.

I don't think I would be very surprised at all (and I don't know if you are making an AGW dig or what).

[saltydawg]

I don't think I would be very surprised at all (and I don't know if you are making an AGW dig or what).

AGW is not irrational. it's based on atmospheric physics. The people who don't recognize AGW aren't focused on the long-term.

[Guisslapp]

AGW is not irrational. it's based on atmospheric physics. The people who don't recognize AGW aren't focused on the long-term.

Really - don't we have ENOUGH threads discussing this nonsense?

[randerizer]

Yeah, I don't really know how to word it, but I really think you understand what I mean. God created "time" from an existance without time.

so there was existence before God created "time"? What exactly are you arguing that God created? Are you accepting that God could NOT have created existence?

[Dirtydawg]

A statement is arbitrary when it is not based on perceptual data (and this is discussed quite a bit in the knowledge thread). It is neither a "truth" nor a falsehood. The idea of "truth" implicitly recognizes that someONE is able to determine that a proposition comports with reality.

Do I understand correctly that the idea of "truth" implicitly recognizes that someONE is able to determine that a proposition comports with reality instead of EVERYone having to determine that a proposition comports with reality?

In other words, for a statement to not be arbitrary (that is neither true or false), it only needs to be determined by the senses of ONE person that it comports with reality?

[Guisslapp]

Yes, "truth" is person A's recognition that a proposition comports with reality (sense perception). Unitl person B recognizes the proposition comports with reality it is arbitrary to person B at best. The objects of existence themseleves are not relative, but the knowledge-condition whereby one recognizes one of the objects of existence may be. What one recognizes as a truth may be arbitrary to another.

[Guisslapp]

I am copying and pasting the following discussion from the "knowledge" thread:

I could make a thousand arbitrary statements and there is a statistical risk that some of my statements may be true. But believing in all of my arbitrary statements and granting them the same conceptual validity as concepts that have perceptual basis would be a gross error of reason. It is not reasonably likely to benefit me in any way.

The concept of truth requires a relationship of a concept to perceptual context. Truth, according to Rand, is "the recognition of reality." The relationship between conceptual content and reality is fundamentally a relationship between man's conciousness and reality. There can be no "correspondence" or "recognition" without the mind that corresponds or recognizes.

If a parrto was trained to squawk "2 + 2 = 4", this does not make it a mathematician. The parrot's consciousness did not attain thereby any contact with reality or any relation to it, positive or negative; the parrot did not recognize or contradict any fact; what was created was not true or falsehood, but merely sounds. Sounds that are not a vehicle of conceptual awareness have no cognitive status. Thus, the arbitrary is STILL not true or false to ther person making the assertion because it is not a recognition of reality. He is no different than the parrot.

[Dirtydawg]

Yes, "truth" is person A's recognition that a proposition comports with reality (sense perception). Unitl person B recognizes the proposition comports with reality it is arbitrary to person B at best. The objects of existence themseleves are not relative, but the knowledge-condition whereby one recognizes one of the objects of existence may be. What one recognizes as a truth may be arbitrary to another.

I am copying and pasting the following discussion from the "knowledge" thread:

I could make a thousand arbitrary statements and there is a statistical risk that some of my statements may be true. But believing in all of my arbitrary statements and granting them the same conceptual validity as concepts that have perceptual basis would be a gross error of reason. It is not reasonably likely to benefit me in any way.

The concept of truth requires a relationship of a concept to perceptual context. Truth, according to Rand, is "the recognition of reality." The relationship between conceptual content and reality is fundamentally a relationship between man's conciousness and reality. There can be no "correspondence" or "recognition" without the mind that corresponds or recognizes.

If a parrto was trained to squawk "2 + 2 = 4", this does not make it a mathematician. The parrot's consciousness did not attain thereby any contact with reality or any relation to it, positive or negative; the parrot did not recognize or contradict any fact; what was created was not true or falsehood, but merely sounds. Sounds that are not a vehicle of conceptual awareness have no cognitive status. Thus, the arbitrary is STILL not true or false to ther person making the assertion because it is not a recognition of reality. He is no different than the parrot.

I guess where I have a problem with this definition of truth is that it seems truth is relative to the individual. I mean, if I haven't experienced something that someone proclaims as a truth then I can't accept it as a truth. If that is the case, then I don't see how one could ever convinct another of a crime without actually having been exposed to the commission of that crime. For example, I didn't actually see terrorists fly airplanes into the WTC other than images I saw on t.v. which could have been faked by the networks. So, for people to say that it happened is arbitrary to me. I haven't seen troops deployed to Iraq and haven't been to Irag to see troops there, so for anti-war people to say we need to stop the war is arbitrary to me because to say we have troops in Iraq killing civilians is arbitrary. Hell, everything is pretty much arbitrary.

[Guisslapp]

Well, if someone cannot put on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury then the jury should acquit. In reality, the jury never knows for certain, but they judge the evidence by a certain standard.

I think you are missing the point to some extent, however. Knowledge is contextual. You have to make sure you don't separate the knowledge from perceptual data. If the extent of your knowledge comes from the news, you must make sure that you keep that recognition in your mind. As a practical matter, we assume many things are true when news is reported to us. I am not suggesting that you ignore what is reported, but you have to realize that someone could be lying to you. But this entire discussion belongs in the knowledge thread not the metaphysics thread.