God: The Immovable Mover
Posted by TheChristianEgoist 11 years ago to Philosophy
Ayn Rand should have been a theist.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Well, this slight restatement of Aristotle’s unmoved mover argument, which St. Thomas made one of his give great arguments, has been debated for an awfully long time. It seems to be popular post, here, which is a tribute to the Galt’s Gulch Online site. I mean where else do you get people debating strict logical necessity.
The argument, as it works it way along, ends with the conclusion that, since there can be no infinite regress of actions that are non-purposeful, actions caused by other actions (always admitting that these are the actions of entities), we must have a starting place. And the starting place is not an accidental action but a purposeful action.
We have to observe, here, that this logic says a purposeful action does not get us into infinite regress. We don’t need a purposeful action caused by a purposeful action caused by… We don’t need this. Because the purpose is not accidental; it is…well, a purpose. A movement by a mover that (HIMSELF) does not have to be moved.
And that unmoved mover, that initiator of a purpose, must have a mind and choice. I mean, a purposeful action must be taken by an entity that/who can HAVE a purpose.
Put it another way: If we speak of a “purpose,” we have to act: whose purpose? What entity’s purpose? Can’t have a disembodied purpose can we?
But, I mean, my question, my worry, is who or what caused, created, this entity? Granted that the entity just took a purposeful action, with no antecedent, still…where did this entity come from? Was it the purpose of some earlier entity? Or it the accidental result of previous actions?
If we say, as Ayn Rand does, that the very first, axiomatic premise, beginning everything, is “existence exists,” then perhaps we can argue that action–motion–is inherent in the very NATURE of existence. It does seem this way, with all those electrons, protons, neutrons swirling around inside of everything we know about… We could say existence exists, and inherently involves motion, instead of saying, a purposeful entity exists whose purposeful actions are the beginning of everything we know..
Which means I still favor the Primacy of Existence argument over the Primacy of Consciousness argument (Unmoved Mover) and I try to alter that Primacy of Consciousness argument by asking: well, what existent entity HAS this initial prime purpose? And why couldn’t action just be inherent in the nature of existence–as we see in the dynamics of the Big Bang?
Still, great to be back in the grand old pursuit of laying down premises with logical necessity.
Well put Sir.
A is A. Existence exists. Things make sense when you accept these as axioms. Arguments to the contrary will eventually break down to contradiction.
When a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, (consciousness) does it still make a sound? Is the deaf rodent squished under it dead?
It has been suggested, that I purchase something you have published. I am inclined to agree.
Please direct me to a list of your offerings.
Respectfully,
O.A.
And it all sounds so convincing when you're 14 or 17. Then you look at what Rand does with those axioms, and you find (a) it's full of holes and (b) idiots defend Rand's errors by defending the axioms, not the conclusions.
In the beginning, there was nothing. No time, no space, no universe. I'm not talking a vacuum or a void but a complete absence of anything. When I say no time, I mean it in the classical sense. Time is motion and without motion there is no time. I disagree, the measurement of time is through motion. The two are not the same thing. So I will call mine non-time to separate the two. Non-time does not exist in space, not even in a vacuum. Since we must agree that non-time has to have existed in order for time to exist then it must have been somewhere. We will call this area non-space. You can think of it as another dimension if that helps you to visualise.
Now, there are 2 views on the existence of time. The first is that it is a river that always exists and therefore time travel is possible by moving along the river to a point of your choosing if you know how, otherwise you are simply a piece of wood drifting with the current in one direction. The other is that there is no past or future but only the present. The past is destroyed to make the new present. My theory requires that this thought of time having no past or future be used.
So, my non-time sitting in non-space destroys itself and makes a new non-time sitting in non-space. This destruction of non-time causes a massive release of energy. Energy cannot exist in non-space, it has to exist somewhere, and the only place for it to exist is space. We have a Big Bang. But non-time and non-space are still there releasing more energy, but now this energy has somewhere to go. We can see the effects of this energy and call it Dark Energy. That is why the universe is expanding and accelerating. This also creates virtual particles, which we call Dark Matter. All of this is allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. 'Something' can come from 'nothing' IF the 'something' returns to 'nothing' after a short time.
The longer a virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics resembles ordinary particles. While they can have less mass than an ordinary particle, they do preserve energy and momentum.
So, now I have space filled with virtual photons(and other virtual particles) following the Big Bang and more on the way. Now we move into two photon physics. "If the energy at the center of mass of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created."(Moffat JW (1993). "Superluminary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Initial Value Problem in Cosmology". Depending on these energy levels, electrons and protons can be created, along with their anti-electrons and anti-protons. This ends my theory of the creation of the universe, but continued ahead is the rest of the Big Bang until the formation of atoms.
Now we hit the problem of why anything exists in the universe. If equal amounts of matter and anti-matter are created, they should cancel each other out. However, for some reason there was just a bit more of matter than antimatter. What we see is the remnant of the matter that was not destroyed. Baryogenesis and Leptogenesis theories to cover these reasons I will leave to others for now to determine, but after this stage you enter into the better understood Big Bang nucleosynthesis and 14.5 billion years later, us.
- Are you saying that the existence of time demands the existence of non-time? Why?
"So, my non-time sitting in non-space destroys itself and makes a new non-time sitting in non-space. This destruction of non-time causes a massive release of energy. Energy cannot exist in non-space, it has to exist somewhere, and the only place for it to exist is space."
- Wouldn't self-destruction be classified as an action?...the type of action which is not possible in non-time and non-space?
- A massive release of energy? Released from *what*? It certainly couldn't have been from non-space according to your theory because energy cannot exist in non-space.
By the way, this entire theory certainly seems to be an attempt at explaining a "trigger" and it doesn't really do much to get around the essentials of my argument (regarding "step 5"). All of these actions which you propose (self-destruction, releases of energy, etc..) are all *actions*. They are either accidental or purposeful. The rest follows.
Non-time is infinite, we will call it Nt, energy we will call e. So we have Nt+Nt=T(ime)+e. The reason you have Nt+Nt is because non-time advanced in a way similar to how time advances. The new Nt destroys the old Nt which forms energy. This is not purposeful or accidental, it is just what Nt does, it is the nature of Nt to progress just as it is the nature of time to progress. Consider this the same as liquid water is wet, then imagine the only thing anywhere is water. If there is nothing to interact with the water to get wet, to experience the wet, would not change the fact that water is wet.
Now, non-space is harder to explain. Non-space is not space with nothing, it is space that only contains non-time and can contain only non-time. This is why I said to imagine it as another dimension, though that is only a way to describe it with our limited words. Since only non-time can exist in non-space, the energy needs somewhere else. This is what caused the Big Bang and our universe, the making of a place for the energy to exist. This also set up a place for all future energies to flow. There was neither an accident or a purpose, only the nature of time, something infinite, without beginning or end. If you don't like the progression of only the present existing then let us return to the river of time analogy, though this causes more problems to explain (here I should point out Occam's Razor.) So time moves as a river, this movement causing friction, the friction causing heat(energy) leading to a Big Bang. Since I have to make many more assumptions (time travel would be possible, there is something for time to travel on, travelling on this something causes friction) I could still make the model work but in a more complicated manner which opens up more questions.
If you want to call time god I guess you could, but since it has no conscience or intent I really see no point.
An excellent, eloquent interpretation and presentation of the “prime mover” argument… It has been argued by many a philosopher.
The problem:
“The above could be summed up in the simple thought that “something with a sufficient nature to begin all of this must exist – and nothing but a personal, divine-like being, would be sufficient”.
Perhaps a leap too far... It is unnecessary, arbitrary. There is no evidence to prove either way. The first action or “beginning” assumes that time is universally finite, that accidental actions could not be timeless, or that existence could not always exist or reoccur. It assumes there is a beginning of existence. All we can say is that the Universe we can observe with our level of instrumentality and understanding is that the “observable” universe is expanding away from a central locus. Since it is just as probable that things are simply the way they are because they are; that even the “big bang theory” could be only a part of a whole or a recurring natural cycle. That the impetus of the “beginning” can not be presently explained to everyone’s satisfaction, does not qualify as evidence sufficient to draw a conclusion requiring mysticism. All things being equal Occam’s razor seems the logical choice. A is A, though men’s perceptions are not equal.
“Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used.”
Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand
Playboy, March 1964
Can Christians live and embrace all earthly aspects of Objectism? Certainly: If a Christian can give up the prevalent altruist doctrine. Could atheist objectivists be wrong about the afterlife? One must die to find the answer. But then, it is too late to prove here.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Where ya been lately? I've missed you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkGzjIq4a...
YES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8AJNzq2B...
It seems as though you disagree with one or two of my premises. It also seems as though you have a misunderstanding regarding the position of theism in general and how it relates to the Objectivists position on existence, as such.
The two premises you seem to disagree with are: 1) That all accidental action necessitates prior action and 2) that there cannot be an infinite regress (a causal series without a beginning).
These are two very widely held premises among objective (i.e. "scientific") thinkers today, and among objective philosophical thinkers throughout history (including, I *think*, Ayn Rand). It seems as though a little bit of objective analysis would reveal that to ultimately deny one of these premises would land one in a fairly hefty contradiction. Have you given much thought as to why you disagree with those premises -- or what the logical consequences would be if one (or both) were not true?
Regarding the apparent misunderstanding: I've run into this a lot with Objectivists - and it is somewhat understandable, considering the type of "theism" which is presented to the culture nowadays. It is assumed that a beginning to *the physical universe* (or to accidental action, in general) means a beginning to *existence, as such* -- but this assumes that "the physical universe" or "all accidental action" IS existence, as such -- that it is the sum total of existence.
On the contrary, though, my position (and the classical mono-theistic position) does not assume that *existence* has a beginning. The theistic position holds that God has always *existed*; that He *exists* eternally; that [His] *existence* has no beginning -- and that He began all *other* existents. Do you see the difference?
Theism does not disagree with Objectivism on the essence of the axiom of existence. Both agree that existence exists - eternally. The Theist is simply not satisfied to stop short; he wants to know *which* existent eternally exists. And what is its nature?
Concerning the altruism, Rand was so close in her understanding of Christianity - and yet so far.. but it was because Christian intellectual for the past few centuries have been even further. It is sad, really. This - combating, correcting, and obliterating the evils of altruism in (and out!) of the Church - is one of my greatest passions, and one of the primary aims for my blog and my writing. There is (likely) no doctrine more despicably evil and out of place in Christianity than that of altruism. It is so thoroughly and disgustingly antithetical to Christian theology, to the nature of God, and to all of reality that I would be hard pressed to think of a more damaging and damning ideology (particularly regarding morality).
I will fight "Christians" on that issue, and I will win. To that end, I am working on my first book, called "THE GALT-LIKE GOD: Meditations of a Christian Egoist".
Please do check out my blog. I honestly believe that it could help clear up a lot of confusion, objections, and misunderstandings. There are some very good comments on the "Immovable Mover" post which will likely be helfpul, as well as a host of other articles which address different angles of the same issue. I especially recommend the "Straw-Man Series": http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...
Chasing Truth,
-The Christian Egoist
1st premise is checked by 2nd premise. No need for a prime mover. There is no evidence for a prime mover, and God as often defined (all-knowing, all powerful) is a negation of reality.
Therefore, the two premises you state above, are not consistent with modern science. I am an atheist and a student of Objectivism.
Rand on Infinity:
An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. "
“Concept-Formation,”
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 18, Lexicon
Rand is incorrect. If you are relying on this statement and statements by Peikoff to this effect, they are not mathematicians and they are wrong.
An excellent book on point is called, "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea," Seife.
I am not an “Objectivist”. I am more accurately a student of objectivism. I am my own philosopher, as are we all. I am not a doctrinaire objectivist. I have my own take in some minor areas, as I do with some “scientific theories”. I do find that objectivism is the most defensible, rational, and reasonable approach to understanding and avoiding contradictions in assessing our reality.
In regards to,
“The two premises you seem to disagree with are: 1) That all accidental action necessitates prior action and 2) that there cannot be an infinite regress (a causal series without a beginning).”
1- I do not disagree with the premise that accidental action necessitates prior action. I believe accidental action is the result of ongoing prior actions. I am not convinced that existence was produced from nothing… that it had a beginning.
2- Correct. I do not believe in an infinite regression that has an end/beginning point. This is, in and of itself, a contradiction. I believe Aristotle had it right. In Physics 8.1, he argues that motion is eternal. Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing, so that there will always be something in motion, since something at rest cannot cause motion in another thing. In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence. Nor can motion cease, since to do so something must cause it to cease, but then the thing that caused motion to cease would require something to cause its cessation and the process would continue ad infinitum. Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" (252b 6-8). http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/grphil/...
I do not have to equate infinite existence with God for it to exist.
I think your approach to Christianity and altruism is a step the right direction. As you are quite aware there are many who do not share your convictions in this regard.
I personally have no objections to what one believes of an afterlife which can not be proved or disproved and are by definition taken on “faith”; so long as it is not forced upon me.
I do believe you must be a supporter of Aquinas.
I have visited your blog. I am afraid I have given this more thought than you have given me credit for. I cannot support your conclusion, nor can I disprove it. I respect your view and the courage to argue for it, even if I do not share it.
Respectfully,
O.A.