A change of form (transformation) is not creation or destruction..........the existent still exists but in a different form.

Nicely summarized, nilecrocodile, and it is a pleasure to meet you. Achieving indifference to circumstances I can't control is a goal I need to set for myself. I am so used to being able to change circumstances so that I am in a situation from which I can get to a productive outcome, that I don't think I have realized how much of that is wasteful of my time.

The traditional arguments for god are all logical fallacies trying to make reason the handmaiden of faith, serving to rationalize what is already believed on faith. That is well-kown history from the early Church. They have come to be examples of a variety of different kinds of fallacies explained in elementary logic texts -- to the extent it is not forbidden by political correctness.

I am glad to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are NOT givens for peoples everywhere. Very well said.

The religious characterization of god as "beyond man's power to conceive" is due to the acknowledge fantasies of god as having no limits, i.e., no identity. The alleged infinite powers are so filled with self-contradictions that it is impossible to conceive. That is so obvious that the theologians had to resort to faith in a supernatural "beyond man's power to conceive". Rejecting such nonsense is not a "logical fallacy". Without identity and non-contradiction there could be no logic.

Pursuit of understanding the nature of these questions does not require or allow adopting the religious mentality. To understand with self-honesty that mentality is to reject it.

Yes, the notion that existence is evidence of religious dogma is preposterous. It shows a subjectivist mindset willing to arbitrarily claim anything as "evidence" for whatever someone wants to believe.

Nanotechnology does not justify religious dogma on life. Your inability to "accept" non-religious possibilities does not make science an act of faith. The record of evidence implies that life in very primitive forms did evolve from inanimate matter. If those primitive cell-level forms of life came from something other than what we know as matter, there is no known evidence of it.

Existence and identity are axiomatic concepts. The concepts and principles of matter and conservation of matter and energy are physics, not philosophy, and not axiomatic. Nuclear reactions and other more subtle experiments show that matter can be created and destroyed as it is partially transformed into energy.

Existence as such does not "come from" anywhere. Existence is everything that is, has been or will be. There is no place outside existence for anything to come from, let alone existence itself.

The question of how the universe as it is now evolved is a scientific question, not for "philosophy to answer" as speculation -- which is the religious mindset, not objectivity. In particular, JB's speculations, previously pushed on this forum and claiming that to account for the complexity of the physical universe space aliens created it, are a bizarre Creationism through Space Aliens invoking the fallacy of the religious "Argument from Design". It is not science, not rational philosophy, and has nothing to do with NASA and whether or not there is other life in the universe.

It's not intriguing, just the usual Rationalistic subjectivism entirely contrary to Ayn Rand's philosophy. The proper starting point for believing anything is small 'o' objectivity: Is it true or false? One cannot "become an Objectivist" (or a scientist) on any other grounds. Calling belief a "worldview" in an attempt to evade the nature of "belief" is Rationalism in the traditional manner of Descartes, Kant and Hegel. A "worldview" is belief about the world; principles are true or false and so is a philosophy. A rational philosophy is not determined by deciding in advance to adhere to a subjective concoction of a "world view" locked up as a mental "model" inside your head.

JB has done this several times in the past, talking about "deciding" to "become" something without first understanding first what it is, let alone if it is true. Objectivism isn't joining, or adherence to, a competing religious sect. You don't decide to "commit" and then begin rationalistically thinking in terms of it. You understand principles and why they are true or you don't, and you don't believe more than you know at any stage of learning and knowledge.

He has also described Objectivism as an abstract "structure" and "deductive system" as its big virtue, as if it were a free floating mental construct. That is pure Rationalism. Ayn Rand's philosophy has a hierarchical structure because of what it is, based on facts that give rise to the concepts and principles. It is not "deduced" from First Principles.

Ayn Rand's ethics is based on the nature of human requirements to use one's mind in order to live. The standard is human nature; the goal is happiness. She did not make pronouncements which, if dutifully followed in accordance with a subjective "worldview", result in success. That is the religious approach. Whether or not one achieves happiness as a state of mind depends on rational choices and effort, correctly, consistently and habitually applied across time. Happiness, as depicted in the heroes of Ayn Rand's novels, is the state of consciousness resulting from achieving one's goals in reality across the course of your life and despite setbacks, not a result of belief in "worldview" or temporary pleasures turning on and off in the range of the moment,

The spectacle of someone who thinks of himself as a scientist and admirer of Ayn Rand proceeding to rationalistically decide in advance whether to "become an Objectivist" -- by deciding on a commitment to a "worldview", in advance of understanding and without regard to what is true, in order to attain inexplicable happy consequences -- is not intriguing, it's sad. No one can understand Ayn Rand's philosophy, let alone become a person who lives by rational principles, with such a subjectivist, Rationalistic approach.

I agree with all you wrote save for the top line, which I do not undersatnd.
How could Ayn Rand leave before the anti-church communist party fully took over but could see the results first hand?

We can always look at what could have been, especially from our vantage point, where we know how things turned out. For example, we know that there could have been an industrial revolution over 2,000 years ago, but it was rejected because those in power refused to give up their slaves. They didn't see the possibility. We, today, know the possibility, because a little over 2 centuries ago, men did decide to industrialize, and today we know the result. The ancients could only surmise a possible result. We know, if they had industrialized, Star Trek wouldn't be fiction, but they had no clue, compounded by the fact that they were subject to perverse incentives, and had no concept of the rights of man. Today, we can look at that and be dismayed by the amount of progress we know could have been, because we know what has been in on tenth of the time. Nevertheless, that's history, aka, water under the bridge. What we can do is make sure that we make decisions that advance the mission, rather than retard it, learn from the mistakes of history, and move forward. There's still a universe out there to explore and settle. Let's engage in that.

I've heard of communism being practiced like a religion. In North Korea we even to have dictator worship.
I've read and heard conservative commentators state that some, not all, atheists practice their disbelief like a religion, especially those bent on intimidating and suing the very sight of religion, especially the Christian one, out of sight and mind.

Mere existence is all you're given. It's up to you to make something of that existence. We all have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). We're given life (mere existence), we also have/need liberty (to make use of that existence), and we pursue happiness (property) to reflect our existence and liberty; to leave a monument behind. It's the pursuit of happiness that's left us with all the things we define as progress, from fire to SETI, and everything in between. The pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of property in its broadest sense, where property isn't just a material thing, but ALL things, especially INTELLECTUAL property, which is the capstone of our civilization.

J and Z,
Thank you so much. Your discussion is the one I enjoyed the most ever since I joined the Gulch. These kind of questions are the ones I was hoping to see discussed and so frequently disappointed with missing them.
The things I am going to write here may not be as crystal clear as those you addressed, but the issues are happiness and the nature of human life in the existence which, obviously, exists. Look at them as an attempt to contribute, however modestly, to your discussion.
1. Each human being is a unique instance of humanity. Nobody ever existed that was "carbon copy" (i.e. completely identical) of any one of us and no such identical copy will ever exist.. That is an inevitable consequence of the nature of the phenomenon we call life (living matter). Thus happiness is a very complex (and not quantifiable) concept pertaining to each and only one individual. To talk about atheists or objectivists as being happy or happier is nonsense to me. As we have, sadly, observed recently, too many times, some people are happy to blow themselves up.
2. We know that it is in the nature of our solar system to have arisen and that it will result eventually in the sun exploding and engulfing our planet. Recently there was news about people being able to measure the tremor from the gravitational waves caused the collision of two black holes. That collision occurred some billions of years ago. What I am proposing for your consideration is the non-simultaneity of possible occurrences of life in this existence.
3. I consider myself an objectivist rookie. And to the best of my ability to understand this is consistent with everything I ever learned (during my 80+ years), but I accept readily that there is an infinite supply of concepts that I never formed. To many questions I am willing to answer I don't know.
4. Not so long ago I went to a whole day lecture about Augustine of Hippo. At one point in the afternoon the lecturer, a known authority on the subject went, step by step, through Augustine's proof that God created man. It occurred to me while listening to that and I told the lecturer at the following questions period. "This is only a glimpse from what I just heard you say. But it seems to me clear that I could turn over 180 degrees that set of argument steps and prove that man invented God." I was thrilled to see him pose for a few seconds and then say: "Yes." I am too lazy to search anywhere (quick attempts did not work) in writing that series of steps. I have known for long time that God is a human invention. That is good enough for me.
Again, thank you for the thoughtful and very interesting discussion.

Exactly, so it's time to drop this. We know we're here, and that there is a universe around us. That's all. We don't know how we got here, from the beginning, so it's a waste of time to go around and around on this. Those who choose a God to explain origins, and those who choose chance to explain origins, both have the same problem of "proof." Since origins can't be proven, let's stop wasting time arguing about something that we can't settle, and just go with "existence exists," and leave it at that. Some will pray, and others will pat themselves on the back, and all will agree to disagree on this. Besides, the argument about God isn't about whether or not He exists, but about the rules that have been implemented, referring to Him as the author. Clearly, compared to most religious dogma, Ayn Rand's objectivism blows them out of the water. THAT's what's important, not an argument about origins.

"Only down to a certain point."

Well Ms.MamaEmma, I can say that, for you and your young'uns, frustration and unhappiness has an expiry date and it begins with egoism and ends in Atlantis.
Atheism most certainly will not be your ticket by definition.
'a' - implying not, negation, nul, nada : while 'theism' would mean a belief in a deity or altruistic power.
To identify yourself as an atheist would identify you as someone who believes in nothing, an empty soul, vessel-"pair of shoes" - empty and would include you in the 'a'moral category. A set of morals of course every one on this site has for sure - so why don't they declare it precisely? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt (although it has a volitional component) and chalk it up to innocence. Which implies something needs to be learned to get to the next stage. So here it is schematically for those 'whom it does concern and who're making an effort to know':
Taking it step by step(or more correctly, 'ledge to ledge' as Galt says in his speech):
1) I
Indivisible, (Integrated) and Perfect - kind of the pinnacle -and every loneliness is one.
2) Egoïst
('ego' being something rather than that nothing - whether you know it to be the mind, soul, spirit ...whatever, you have to acknowledge that it is something, that it does exist and that it is an integral part of you.
....................................................
protective ray screen
……………………………………………………
3) Atheist (no god ... but what then? - identify it.) Not ready to recognize the what at the core of existence? hmm, not good candidates for Mulligan's Valley I'm afraid - recall what happens to Eddie Willers.
4) Theist (be it mono-, poly-, multi-,etc.
3) & 4) wallow the rest of their and their students' lives in that mystic/altruist/collectivist cesspool - masoscism? - I don't care to know and you don't either because you now know that you and the future that you've created(your kids) are no longer beholden to 'the rule of the productive accorded by the looter/moochers.' Find out more here:
http://www.GaltsGulchPortal.blogspot.can
Moral code:MotivePower:MotorUnit
all done and well done
Ayn Rand would be proud and here is where pride is a virtue.
Bring your kids too - its why you had them after all - right?!
And I mean it.
JohnGalt Iamoura

In the late 60's I read a lot of Branden and listened to his lectures "The principles of Objectivism" and in the one lecture " The concept of god" there is one basic concept that I took away-that being the law of causality. The law of causality is in the universe or reality just as time and space and matter are in reality. To expect a cause for reality is to misunderstand this concept that existence exists or A=A. Just as there is no beginning without time. And time is in the universe. The universe is not in time. And causality is dependent on this fact also.

"The correct question is.................."
BULLSEYE

I agree with your points here, philosophercat, but note that some of your statements regarding Christianity, while true prior to 50 years ago, are not as true of Christianity anymore. I know quite a few Christians who are happier than anyone else I know. Delusional? Perhaps, but nonetheless happy.

That's why she could

".....it told me to put down any sharp objects and call a sponsor."

Big Grin (can't find emoticons)

Rand was pretty clear on that. Those not in perfect agreement with her were shunned. Shunned probably isn't the right word for it, but I can't think of a better one.