I agree with Objectivism's focus on capitalism and mutual free exchange, limited government and that government exists to uphold rights rather than to control people through force. But while I admire Rand and can sympathize with Rand's disgust over many of the large "Christian" religions and their inherently ridiculous policy positions (ever read the Nicean Creed? supererogation?), I can't agree with Objectivism's adoption of atheism. IMHO, Rand fell victim to the "guilt by association" fallacy and decided that since her experiences with Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy were decidedly negative that it meant that there was no God at all - a fallacy of the extremes.

To me, a more logically consistent view (and IMO the one Objectivism should have taken) is that of the agnostic. The agnostic admits that a higher power could be possible because it is one's own limitations - either in imagination or experience - which are the limiting factor. I support the position of the agnostic because I believe that any search for Deity must be undertaken of one's own free will and choice and that the relationship and experience resulting from an honest search are intensely personal and sacred.

Logically, I can't resolve the fundamental flaw in atheism's premise: that such can't prove their own hypothesis without becoming exactly what they claim does not exist! What makes this all the more glaring is that those very atheists demand proof from everyone else when they should be seeking it themselves. (Most even when presented with evidence simply dismiss it or downplay it.)

Most of all, however, atheism to me is limiting. It can't explain the origins of life or existence. It can't explain fundamental purpose. To me, those are questions which any true and encompassing philosophy/religion absolutely has to be able to answer. Had Objectivism simply adopted agnosticism, it could maintain an objective view on the question of God. Not coincidentally, I believe this is also the primary reason one sees few proselytes to Objectivism.

This essay:

https://theobjectivestandard.com/what...

is a good summery of Objectivism as an absolutist system. That seems to be the view of The Ayn Rand Institute while The Atlas Society seems to be open for some change for any objective errors that might be changed.

Does the secular base of Objectivism matter to you? It does not allow for any supernaturalism. Because of the rational base for Objectivism, I find that many nonsecular believers still like the philosophy.

According to the scientific method, a theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed time and time again through observation. However, a theory is not "set in stone." Bohr's theoretical model of the atom was great - until one got beyond hydrogen and found the model to be limited in its ability to describe other atoms. Similarly with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Modern astrophysics are now beginning to explore black holes which seem to present corner-cases to this theory as well.

If one wanted to, one could assign confidence intervals to various stages: 10% to a new hypothesis, 60% to a proven hypothesis, 90% to a theory, and 99.99% to a Law. Note that even with a Law one lacks 100% confidence in its accuracy simply to acknowledge the limitations of human knowledge. (Short of omniscience, I don't know that one could get to 100%).

And I'm not sure I would credit Rand with believing her philosophy to be 100% accurate. That seems rather... hard to believe.

"Einstein stated that the theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories". As such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery." From Wikipedia.

Just wondering whether your view of a theory is that it is 'written in stone' as Rand considered her philosophy Objectivism, or as others and myself, that it is correctable and extendable.

And your point is... what exactly?

I will just deal with your apparent science is settled.

"A theory can predict something..."

"You're mixing terminology. In science, a theory is something which has already been proven repeatedly through extensive testing. Examples include the Theory of Relativity, etc. It's precedent is the confirmed hypothesis and its antecedent is the Law, such as the Law of Gravitational Attraction."

A theory satisfies all known knowledge which it deals with. It is not safe from failure. New knowledge and ideas or mathematical calculation, as in the case of GR predict new knowledge from the theory. Does that knowledge agree with objective reality? If it does the theory survives, if not the theory must be corrected or discarded. GR came about to explain the relativity of accelerated motion while SR dealt with uniform motion. GR dealt with in particular gravitation and predicted the correct perihelia shift of the orbit of Mercury and other planets and the curvature of light by large masses. Those were verified by experiments, so the theory held. The theory still holds over more than 100 years of confirmed predictions such as clock rates in gravitational fields and will fail with the first contradiction with objective reality.
Some theories such as quantum physics, which are probabilistic in nature, predict the probabilities for what measurements find.

"How can you equate individualism to being destined only to suffering?"

I didn't make that argument. I argued the contrary: that suffering in this life allows us to more fully appreciate happiness not only in this life but the next. Does one enjoy health without experiencing sickness? Does one appreciate companionship without experiencing separation? And though it may seem like a schtick, it does build character. Do we grow stronger through an easy life or because we rose to overcome challenges?

"I did not hate those how threatened me with eternal suffering or the christian neighbor woman who threatened to ring my neck if I ever walked on her side walk.Or many other good Christians who told me to go to hell. They had their lives to live but must have feared my unbelief."

They understand neither "hell" nor "heaven" nor have developed the compassion or tolerance of a true follower. I can understand Rand's criticism of and contempt for them; it is unfortunate that they are a majority of those who call themselves Christians. (As you can probably tell, I don't have a particularly positive opinion of the current Pope, either.)

"At no time did I find need to pray and today would consider it irrational grovel for favors from some lord."

And I wouldn't fault you for any of that. I am very grateful, however, for conversations with a loving Father.

"To even form an hypothesis requires some evidence to be confirmed or rejected."

Incorrect. Evidence is a result of testing the hypothesis, not a basis for its construction. A hypothesis is a prospective conclusion formed from underlying assumptions which rationally connect. The test of the hypothesis serves as either verification or rebuttal of at least one of the assumptions.

"No need to go further than having no evidence of something to discard an hypothesis."

Remember that a hypothesis consists of one or many assumptions which include the measurement or observation methods. One must be very careful to employ the correct analysis tools and methods or one may arrive at an erroneous conclusion as a result. One of the most notable is that in positing the hypothesis of a supreme being, we are not positing the existence of a static object or process, but of an intellect and power with autonomy and volition which both exceed our own. Thus the critical need to identify valid observation methods and accept that these - of necessity - may be subject to the cooperation of that superior intellect. If we constrain the test to only what we allow, we are almost certain to fail.

"A theory can predict something..."

You're mixing terminology. In science, a theory is something which has already been proven repeatedly through extensive testing. Examples include the Theory of Relativity, etc. It's precedent is the confirmed hypothesis and its antecedent is the Law, such as the Law of Gravitational Attraction.

"Without evidence, wishful thinking will define..."

One can not arrive at a correct conclusion without conducting a valid test. I would strongly caution you against impugning others for that which you have not undertaken. It isn't "wishful thinking" to desire one's own happiness and continuance. To the contrary, it is the object of existence.

Disagree.

"Consider the following two (opposing) hypotheses: 1. There is no such thing as a creator or supreme being, 2. There is a creator or supreme being."

To even form an hypothesis requires some evidence to be confirmed or rejected. If those are premises to be used logically they must first be shown to be true in objective reality else logic will not give a real result. Anything can be shown true because of a false premise.

No need to go further than having no evidence of something to discard an hypothesis. If evidence is found, then an hypothesis can be formed and possibly be investigated. It is epistemologically irrational to try to prove a negative. It is impossible to prove nothing.

"The second actually presents several intellectual challenges. First and foremost, one would have to actually study and define what characteristics would have to exist in such a being."

How do you study the properties of something for which one has no evidence? In science one studies existents and forms theories which predict other things. If they don't exist the theory has to be modified or discarded. A theory can predict something not known to exist as in physics where the positron and neutrino were predicted and found many years later. There are theories such as the supersymmetry extension of the standard model for particles for which no predicted particles have been at great cost.
The acceptance of properties of that for which there is no physical evidence is irrational.
Theology has done that for millennia with good properties for god along with some evil punisher evil god created to help the good god explain its failures. Without evidence, wishful thinking will define whatever god will best govern humans for whoever desires power and be faithfully be believed in by being herded.

If you can track down a copy (try Bookfinder.com), read "The Camp of the Saints", by Jean Raspail.

He predicted all this in the 1970s, except for the part of it being by design.

I am very sorry about your baby and the pain the death caused you. I know the pain from the illnesses an deaths of loved ones beginning as small boy nearly eight decades ago. You never really get over it.

How can you equate individualism to being destined only to suffering? If that is true then if there is a caring powerful god, all you end with the same suffering and the belief like my sister of some heavenly afterlife listening to heavenly music for eternity, not understanding eternity. I hope she got her wish years after breast cancer and killed in a traffic accident at 50. Or my 76 year old christian brother who died last month from cancer and for two years unable to feed himself or all the other god fearing humans that I can no longer interact with after they suffered and died. Seems like it is best to try to enjoy any happiness you can achieve by living a honest moral life.

The human brain can create bodily feelings of something near by or touching the one's skin. Happens to me from time to time. Could it be my mother near and touching me though having died seventy years ago? I do know how strange things can happen with brain activity. I suffered from panic attacks in grad school and tried low dose LSD, didn't want hallucinations from a full dose messing with neural transmitters with even a little able cause strange mental effects. First there was nausea and a lot of gagging over a sink follow with stabbing at a table over and over and salivating followed by the weird feeling of the saliva going back into the glands. After that calmness and watching a physicist smoking pot describing the ceiling.

I am a non-militant atheist and do not, other than during short discussions, try to convince others. I did not hate those how threatened me with eternal suffering or the christian neighbor woman who threatened to ring my neck if I ever walked on her side walk.Or many other good Christians who told me to go to hell. They had their lives to live but must have feared my unbelief.

I Was not indoctrinated as a small child in a secular type family where we learned moral lessons from stories about honest and truthful famous persons. I was the oldest of seven puss two dead in miscarries in nine years. I learned to cope with illnesses and long cancer death of my mother at the age of 13. At no time did I find need to pray and today would consider it irrational grovel for favors from some lord.

I've layed out a case for actual evil. What I've said is verifiable. Logic dictates that if this true evil exists then true good must exist as well.

This is not mysticism is empirical evidence of one to validate the logical and reasoned existence of the other.

Agree?

I am an atheist which just means that I do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Those who try to prove that something does not exist for which there is no evidence are wasting their time. Only positive statements can be proven false by a lack of evidence. There is only one rational reason to believe something exists and that is deduction from physical evidence first hand or through experimentation. To not believe in the existence for something just requires the lack of evidence. Atheism is irrational in wasting time trying to prove the absence of something for which there is no evidence. So my atheism is just that I have no evidence for the existence of a god which is said to exist by billions, therefore I am an atheist. I am not required to prove any more. Look, I am 83 and have been through many arguments and threats by those who have tried to convince me that their beliefs suffice to prove the supernatural operating behind existence.

Brought to you by Pfizer. In case you missed it.
(No really....watch it again.)
My objectivity is rapidly failing.
I’m trying to replace it with apathetic nihilism but that’s not going very well.
I could make a case for a creator. But that’s something for everyone to decide for themselves. I know what I believe. If I’m wrong then it doesn’t matter. But if I’m right then everything matters.
We are free to choose. By design.

My experiences are personal and meaningful to me - less so to anyone else. It's not an attempt to shrug off the question, it's simply the fact of the matter that until you experience something personal it won't carry much weight.

I will tell you that one of my personal experiences came during the death of my baby twelve years ago. She wasn't quite one and died from something the doctors later wrote up as myocarditis. It took two additional days for the doctors to finally admit what we knew and acquiesce to our wishes to take her off life support. I knew it when she left, however. Her presence didn't dissipate or disintegrate. She left for other realms. And every now and then I can feel her peeking in on me as if to say "Hi!"

"Individual human brains are sufficient to explain all of human history..."

To argue such is to argue that man is destined only for suffering as the vast majority of human history revolves around suffering and pain. An alternative is to posit that we learn the hard things - including suffering - so that we may more fully enjoy life in the next realm. It is hard to appreciate what one has not experienced.

D'Souza is a Christian apologist, no question. I posted the link primarily for his comments regarding the difference between the brain and the mind, which were also posited by dobrien. One can't measure the mind with any known instrument any more than one can instrumentally determine whether someone is conscious.

Consider the following two (opposing) hypotheses: 1. There is no such thing as a creator or supreme being, 2. There is a creator or supreme being.

What would be the method to examine and prove either of these? For the first, one would of necessity be forced to examine and understand every aspect of the universe. In other words, in order to positively assure yourself there was no such thing as a supreme being you would in effect have to become it!

The second actually presents several intellectual challenges. First and foremost, one would have to actually study and define what characteristics would have to exist in such a being. IE you would have to study religion. Science can't help here. If you failed, it wouldn't necessarily rule out that existence, either. Instead, you would have to challenge the set of characteristics attributed to that being and/or the identification method being utilized as either could be part of a failed hypothesis. When one looks closer, one begins realizing that attempting to prove the second hypothesis is actually the only way to go about proving the first anyway!

Something to consider.

Deep state pigs are hellbent on taking National Sovereignty away from the citizens. Flooding the white countries with non aligned colored people
Chips that Sovereign Nationalism to pieces.
Genocide is clearly a big part of the agenda and Raping white girls doesn’t hurt Their murderous plans.

A bit of theism there. I understand the so called anthropic principle not as a objective reality having been made for the existence of life and in particular for conscious animals. but rather that reality is compatible with the existence of conscious life. The jump to irrationality is is in that "made' for which there is no evidence. I am not intellectually lazy enough to posit a creator for what I don't understand. Don't make your existence depend upon being some special conscious creation of the Universe or of some deity. The Universe was some kind of creation for you.

"Your unfamiliarity with such does not alter a single one of the personal experiences upon which my knowledge is based."

Please tell me about some of those experiences. Perhaps I can see where you are coming from.
I have never seen any evidence for any forces or fields other than those known to science. I do see a lot of attempts to explain things by positing undiscovered or even mystical means for explaining how living bodies and mindful brains exist and operate.. Whatever, that does not remove individuals from the reason for all good and evil actions causing joy and pain among humans and other animals.

Individual human brains are sufficient to explain all of human history by their logical use of reason both with true or false premises. The search for ancient aliens or gods or external unknown forces helping humans, begs the question as to where are they. I am hoping your mental experiences can give me some new knowledge about objective reality.

Not to downplay the horrible accusations in any way, but it's funny how much time the English cops are spending looking into the "white guy" pedophiles of yesteryear, yet look the other way at the multitude of Muslim rape gangs operating unchecked right now.

Yes, there are far too few Dagny Taggarts, Francisco d'Anconias, Ellis Wyatts and Hank Reardons in industry today, and far, far too many Horace Mowens.

Thank you!
You're very knowledgeable about this.

gee...
God created Nature
to look at a baby and not see God is beyond my understanding

read Darwin's Black Box to get a clue

satan's greatest trick was to hide his existence...

Here's a very interesting explanation of mind: https://rumble.com/v28qn8m-the-signif...