What is “God”? A Christian youth group in my town recently concluded that “God is whatever you understand him to be.” In other words, “He can mean anything.” In yet even other words, “He means nothing at all.” This, however, is not what is generally meant when someone says “God”. By “God”, most people mean a personal being, the creator and ruler of the universe, someone that listens to their prayers and cares about them. This is the usage I will use throughout this post.
Does God exist? A god described as all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient) would be metaphysically impossible. Nothing can be so powerful so it that may violate the laws of reality. Such a being would necessarily be unreal and, therefore, non-existent. Also, nothing and no one can be conscious of an infinite amount of things at once. To be conscious is to be conscious of something(s), a quantity of things. Infinity, however, is unquantifiable. One may argue that there are only a finite amount of things in the universe of which to be conscious, but it’s important to keep in mind that ideas are included in the universe; and that realm is limitless.
Aside from this, God is simply arbitrary. Even if he were ascribed attributes that fall within the realm of metaphysical conceivability, there is no evidence to support such a being. What about miracles? The extraordinary is not proof of the supernatural. If you were cured of cancer, you should be praising your doctors, not God. And fulfilled prophesies? Many of these “prophesies” are considerably vague, like horoscopes, which can apply to a broad range of situations.
But can there be a morality without God? Absolutely. Nature alone requires that you act a certain way if you want to live; no God is necessary. There can be and is an objective morality that identifies the requirements of man’s life and the means by which to fulfill them. It is called Objectivism.
Great post, Brandon!
I’m surprised that the Christian group where you live would go along with the “god can be anything you want” spiel.
My biggest contention with the god argument is that I tend to believe that those who claim there definitely is no god sound just as silly as those who claim with all certainty that there is. To say anything is absolutely, completely impossible is difficult for me. Laws of physics have been broken before, and there are those who use physics as proof for a god. I guess I would fall on the “How the heck do you know?” side of things.
The morality = Christian thing is a great point, one that is especially poignant in this time of presidential debates. Somehow morality became equal to god-fearing or Christian, something that just blows my mind. Yes, good Christians should be moral people, but so should good atheists, or deists, or agnostics, or whatever you choose.
Keep it up!
Hey Beth. Thanks for the comment!
I understand your concern about making statements saying that something is “absolutely impossible”. However, it can be perfectly reasonable to make them, such as in this case.
Please note that I said God is “metaphysically” impossible, not “physically” impossible. Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality whereas physics is more specialized, dealing with the laws of the physical world. For example, to illustrate what I mean by metaphysically impossible, something can’t exist and not exist at the same time. That is a contradiction no matter what the laws of the physical world may be. And contradictions can not exist in reality.
I tried to indicate that God is only metaphysically impossible if one ascribes impossible attributes to him such as omnipotence and omniscience, which contradict the very nature of reality. I once argued with a Christian, however, who, whenever I demonstrated something to be impossible, would change his mind and say that God then must have the next best thing. Because of that, in this post I tried to point out that even if one said that he didn’t have those attributes, he would still be arbitrary, although not necessarily impossible.
Regarding the physicists who try to “prove” the existence of God, I’ve read some of their arguments. They generally argue that God is outside of space and time. I don’t understand how one could seriously consider such an arbitrary statement as “proof” of anything.
–Brandon
I am also surprised that they would say that God can be anything. I guess that would make it hard to argue with them. It would be like asking who would win in a fight between an imaginary warrior and a real warrior. You don’t know what powers the imaginary one has or even if it could die. I must say I could never believe in the God you fight against. I happen to think that if a God did exist, which He does, He would be a capitalist, no force, no coercion.
I am surprised that you and mosley think that God preaches altruism. I cannot see how anybody could come to this conclusion. Jesus said ” Love thy neighbor AS thyself”. He did not say BEFORE, or ABOVE, thyself. If you hate yourself I do not want you to be my neighbor, you will hate me!
Hello Bryan,
I prefer to say I’m against all forms of faith rather than any particular deity or religion. So if your belief in God is based on faith, then I reject him as well. Would you mind explaining why you believe God exists and in what form?
With regard to Christianity, I do see it as altruistic. Christians are told to emulate Christ. And what did Christ do? He constantly sacrificed. He gave up everything, including his life, for the sake of others. I don’t see how faith and self-sacrifice are by any means compatible with capitalism.
–Brandon
@ Brandon -
I understand what you mean about the difference between physically and metaphysically possible. I agree with you about the metaphysical argument for god.
The idea that one can say any thing, such as god, absolutely does or does not exist, remains an issue with me that I consistently bring up during debates like this. While there is benefits for an individual to make a decision whether or not something exists based on what he knows instead of being in a constant state of limbo, I find it difficult to understand how this decision based on “facts” allows him to claim something as an absolute. While an individual may “know” something, what makes it actually so? I’m kind of just thinking while I’m typing at this point, so it’s probably difficult to follow.
I think the argument that Bryan brought up about religion and altruism is an interesting one. I think that while lessons like “love thy neighbor” can be considered either altruistic or simply in your own best interest, I do think that many, if not all, organized religions do encourage what I feel is altruism and hold self-sacrifice up as an admirable quality.
Happy New Year!
Hey Beth. I’m confused as to how you agree with my metaphysical argument but still are reluctant to say such a god is absolutely impossible. If something contradicts the laws of reality, such as a god wielding omnipotence and omniscience, it can not actualized and can not be real. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you? (Sorry if I am.)
Regarding Bryan’s quote, I’m not sure I understand its significance. Why is it good to “love” people unconditionally? Love is a form of admiration, and while there are a great many people who should be admired, there are a great many people who should not be. Admiring someone for no reason other than the fact that they, too, have opposable thumbs is at best, silly; and at worst, disgusting.
It’s good to treat people kindly even when you don’t know them, but when people lack humanity, when they murder and rape or are otherwise deliberately evil, I see no good in pretending like they’re worthy of admiration.
–Brandon
Brandon,
Thank you for replying, to be honest I love talking about this kind of thing and being able to participate in an exchange where we both learn after seeing the others view point. I have to thank you again for replying in a way that was not offensive to me even though you do not agree.
I think in order to explore this topic we have to set out some basic things that we agree on. I think we have a big disagreement first on what faith is.
Let me start by saying that I have a little bit of a different view of God then most Christians do. I believe that when Christ left this earth and ascended into heaven he did not call a prophet to take his place. When the people on earth do not fallow Gods teachings it is of little use for him to call a prophet. When the people are humble enough to admit that they may not know everything all they thought they did then He can teach them. Long story short a lot of people have jumped in on the power that they saw in his message and have sabotaged it for their own gain. But truth doesn’t change just because you want it to. Some preachers of the word wrongfully promote socialism in his name. I think that this is done on purpose at times and on accident, through ignorance, at other times. Because of this some think that Christ himself was altruistic. To understand this you must understand that he was a savior and that no man could be saved without him. He was also given power over death because of his father. So what would a world be like without any people? Pretty boring! Animal cannot think or speak they make dull companions to spend an eternity with. Therefore Christ made the CHOICE for a short term sacrifice for a long term reward.
Faith is not the same as hope. If I want to make a million dollars I have to believe that it can be done and that I can do it, then I must take steps to accomplish my goal. Only after I do these things does my hope become faith. This is why James said “faith if it hath not works is dead, being alone.”-James 2:17 Also I have never been to china, but I have faith that it exists, because I have meet people who have been there and i have seen pictures but I have never been. This is because in order to have faith I must have evidence that persuades me to believe.
As for the form in which He exists He has a body of flesh and blood and we are created in his image. So does His son Christ. The Holy Ghost is a messenger who does not have a body but is only a spirit. I wonder how some people believe that they are all one? Did Christ forsake himself while on the cross? -Mathew 27:46 Who was speaking at Christs baptism? -Mathew 3:17 anyway that is just a rant against those who would change his doctrine.
I have heard that God want to control you, If he did want to He HE WOULD! I think this comes from a miss understanding of the word commandment. A commandment is like a promise if you do this, I will do that. If you don’t kill people, you will live a happier life. This is why moses put the ten commandments into the ark of the Covenant (which means promise).
I like what you said to beth about unconditional love. I agree with your thinking our difference in opinion lies in semantics. If I love some one who disagrees with me then the best way I can love them is to try to persuade them of the error of their ways, if they do not accept, then we must part our ways. If someone initiates force then I must protect myself, even if that means I have to destroy them to protect my life. If my brother offends me I am free to cut him out of my life, but If he apologizes I can forgive him and let him back in my life. I must judge how sincere he is first. When he is out of my life I can still love him by not constantly complaining about him, I do not need to hold a grudge. It will not make my life better to hold a grudge.
Well I better stop it is getting a little long. Thank you again.
-Bryan
@ Brandon -
You’re right that I contradicted myself by saying that I agreed with your argument about god being metaphysically possible. I guess thinking back on it, personally, I don’t believe that the definition of god that you presented exists, but I don’t know that for sure. How would I know that for sure? How does one know anything for sure? I just know that for me, I don’t see the benefit in believing in such an idea.
I guess my primary concern with objectivism is that it doesn’t seem to leave room for the unknown. While I find it very beneficial for the individual to make rational decisions to the best of his abilities, how about thinking outside the box? I find that philosophies that explore the possibility that reality is not what it seems to be can lead to great strides in the way mankind thinks and what can be accomplished. Einstein didn’t accomplish what he did by taking things as they seem to be, for example.
Thanks for the good discussion!
Bryan,
First of all, you’re welcome, and thank you for participating. I like to see activity on the site and having a chance to discuss these issues. So now I’m going to jump right in.
I define faith as accepting something as true because of one’s feelings rather than evidence. Using your example of China, I believe it exists because I have seen a vast amount of evidence; and so, that is not faith. For God, however, I have seen no evidence. It would require faith for me to believe that he exists. My mom, for example, believes God exists because she “feels” it; that’s faith. Would you mind explaining why you believe he exists?
And without evidence, I still regard Christianity as altruistic because the long-term you speak of, the afterlife, is based on faith. And I don’t believe that acting on faith can be beneficial to the self (rather, it’s destructive to the self), so these actions are really only “benefiting” others.
Also, I don’t believe that commandments are suitable for moral guidance. They are given as absolutes without context. For example, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Well, what if I must do so to save my life or my family? What about in situations where I’m asked a question and the asker has no right to know the answer, but my silence would provide that answer? In situations such as these, I hold that it can be perfectly moral to lie. All-encompassing demands such as the commandments can be dangerous. And as far as I know, the Bible gives no exceptions. Instead, I believe an entire moral code is necessary (Objectivism).
Lastly, if your last paragraph was intended to clarify your understanding of the quotation you provided, I’m afraid I’m still confused. You described your way of dealing with a loved one that you disagree with, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” as I don’t think “neighbor” implies “a loved one”.
–Brandon
P.S. Would you mind putting spaces between your paragraphs? It’d be a little easier for me to read.
Beth,
Sorry for the HUGE response, but I hope it’s helpful.
I’m not sure how well read you are into Objectivism or philosophy in general, but are you aware of the three basic axioms? These are self-evident truths at the base of all knowledge that can not be denied without contradiction. If I recall correctly, they were formulated by Aristotle, and Ayn Rand presented them as follows:
Existence (”existence exists”), identity (”things are what they are”) and consciousness (”I am conscious”). None of these statements can be denied without assuming their validity. In order to say that existence does not exist, you must first be existing; the words you’re saying must exist. And for something to exist means it exists as something, things have a nature. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what any person thinks or desires. That is the Law of Identity. And lastly, to be aware is to be conscious. You can’t be aware that there is no awareness; that’s a contradiction, and contradictions can not exist in reality. These axioms are the very grounds by which I demonstrated that God, as I presented him, is impossible.
With regard to knowledge beyond that, it’s important to keep in mind that knowledge does not lie in a vacuum, it must exist within a context. The following is an example used by Dr. Peikoff in his book “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” on pages 173-174:
There’s a great difference in trying to discover what you don’t know and acting against what you do know. I hope it’s now clear that Objectivism is only against the latter. And since you mentioned Einstein, I’ll mention a quote of his that I find relevant, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” Or in other words, “The universe is capable of being known.”
–Brandon
Brandon,
Thank you for your response.
I was reading over my previous posts and found that I was jumping all over the place, going from issue to issue. Ill try to make this reply a little easier to understand.
First our relation to God. I think in order to understand the nature of God we need to understand our relation to him.
1. Romans 8:16- The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.
2. Acts 17:29- For as much as we are that offspring of God, we ought not to think that the God head is like unto gold, or silver…
3. Matt 5:48- Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
4.Psalms 82:6 –I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
I want to explore the implications of the thought that we are children of God.
First. We have the ability to create, think and reason, never has any animal had any of these abilities.
Second. By seeing that we are children of God we see that where we come from, as well as where God himself came from.
Third. What about Gods power? I am not all powerful are you? this is because of the basic truth that we are all constantly progressing If you reach your goal you set a new one and keep going. Without constant progression you get board quickly. (Capitalism speeds up this process by adding the element of competition.)
God has power because of what he knows. I work with glass and because I understand principles about glass, I can work with very large pieces of glass, some have seen me work and say that they cannot believe their eyes because what I do is amazing. yet I do not do magic as I work with the glass I just fallow the principles. God understands the principles that govern the universe, this allows him to create worlds with great ecological systems. God had to learn these principles in order to become God. He cannot violate principle or things will fall apart. God also has power because of respect. He had to prove himself in order maintain that respect. because of this if God lies he will cease to be God.
Fourth. You are preparing to be a god. You do not work for anyone else but yourself, you cannot make someone else a god. Maybe you can point out mistake another has made in order to correct it, but they must make the decision to correct it. Not everyone will qualify to be a god. A god must be intelligent. This is one more reason why John Dewey, and other “comprachicos” of the world try to dumb down the people.
The principles that govern the universe are truths that never change. duh. The ten commandments were given to help teach people to learn the principles, but they are not the principles themselves. I think of it like a hole in the ground. If I don’t want people to fall in the hole then I built a fence. The hole represents principles disobeyed, the fence represents the commandments. so if I were to kill someone for the joy of killing, I will have disobeyed the principle of no initiation of force, as well as broken the commandment “thou shalt not kill”. However if I kill someone who has broken into my house and threatens the life of my family. I may have jumped the fence but I did not fall in the hole. The lord will not punish me for jumping the fence because the only way I could avoid the hole was by obeying principle.
Love thy neighbor. When Christ is asked which is the great commandment he responds love the Lord and thy neighbor as thyself. then he is asked who is my neighbor? Then Christ gives the parable of the good Samaritan who helped a certain man who fell among thieves. I do not think the story would have gone the same if the man who fell among thieves were a thieve himself. The reason The lord used the Samaritan in this parable was to demonstrate that you cannot judge someone buy their place of origin. The people of Jerusalem use to take an extra time in their journey to Nazareth so that they could be sure to walk around Samaria, because they hated the Samaritans so much. Christ wanted to teach them to love others, especially those who had done nothing to harm them.
Brandon, I do not mean to offend your mother but saying that God exists because you feel it is not a convincing argument, I guess that is why you are not convinced. I find it to amazing to be coincidence that we live just far enough from the sun as to not be burned and just close enough as to not freeze. It is amazing that we have water and animals and plants. Plants are amazing to me because we can use them to eat and to heal our bodies. I loved your quote from Einstein, Things can be understood even down to the smallest of things. This was not an accident. Another quote from Einstein is “God does not play dice with the universe.” This is from the same idea but it goes along with the things that I was saying earlier about God. He must fallow the laws of the universe in order to be a god.
I believe that you can have a personal relationship with God. You can ask Him, with real intent, if he does exist and he will respond through your feelings. Once this happens then you will be convinced by your own feelings and not by those of another. So I do respect your mothers feelings, but they are personal and as I said are not as convincing to others.
Thank you, I do not believe that objectivists are close minded to the idea of God as beth said but that objectivits do not see a rational way for him to exist therefore they do not believe he does. Is this true?
-Bryan
P.S. Thank you also for the tip, I agree it looks a lot better with the spaces.
Hey Bryan,
For now, I’d like to set aside the details of the Christian religion and focus on the fundamental issue, the existence of God.
The post that we’re commenting on was intended to explain what I understand to be the Objectivist position on God. In short, he is either a) metaphysically impossible, depending on the attributes ascribed to him, and/or b) arbitrary, without evidence. I’m glad that you have now presented some of what you believe to be evidence for God’s existence, and it amounts to: “How can you say all of this happened by chance?”
Speaking metaphysically, things do not happen by “chance”; things happen because nature requires entities to act a certain way. A beautiful and complex crystal may form in a cavern because of certain conditions that were in place, but this was not chance; it is simply an act of nature. The same applies to the entire universe and all of the formations contained within it, including the life-sustaining Earth. Things happen the way that they have to happen. And I’ve seen nothing that necessitates or implies the need for some kind of higher intelligence to craft our planet. Do you have any such evidence?
Lastly, I would just like to note that Einstein did not believe in a personal god or deity. He once said, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Einstein is using “God” in a pantheistic sense, meaning that “God” is a reference to the nature of the universe or reality itself, not a personal god like that of the Christian religion.
–Brandon
No one can say with any kind of authority whether there is a God or not, which is why this debate gets quite annoying. You can back up both sides as long as you want, but point being is no one knows. Not even intelligent followers of Objectivism, who feel their philosophy and set of moral laws are superior to those who follow faith and religion. It’s whatever works for you and I don’t think anyone should have the right to take that away from someone or criticize them, no matter how stupid you think they are for following their beliefs.
I’m a lifelong Atheist and I can support my position for hours, but I never try and convert others; I respect them for having their own beliefs. Objectivism just doesn’t seem to leave room to respect others with contradictory opinions…
And please do not reply to this comment; this subject is far too inconclusive to debate it. We already have our set opinions, it’s a waste of time to try and substantiate them, unless we need practice reaffirming our own beliefs, which I do not.
—————————————————
And if you have not guessed by now, I find some faults in the Objectivist philosophy, despite the fact that I had been one for almost 5 years. Once you get to where I am and you are able to step away from accepting all of the philosophy and start to see its faults, you will have matured. Otherwise, it’s just your own personal take on Objectivism in blind faith. I’m the one who converted Mosley into this philosophy and sub sequentially led to the making of this podcast and sometimes I wonder if that wasn’t a mistake. I just keep in mind that this is a learning process and you won’t be drones forever. I’m sorry if I offend anyone on here, but I can’t help but play devil’s advocate on a subject I was once so fond of!
Emily,
I’m responding to your comment because I do not want to see these criticisms and accusations left unanswered in this public forum. If you do not wish to debate, it’s your choice not to respond.
First of all, as I’ve tried to indicate in my post and reiterate again throughout these comments, God can be disproven if he is demonstrated to be contradictory with himself or with known truths. Attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience violate the Law of Identity. And so, if God is ascribed such attributes, he, too, is contradictory and therefore unreal i.e. non-existent. If not, he is still arbitrary without any sort of evidence, though, not necessarily impossible. I’m surprised that you called yourself an Objectivist for 5 years but did not know this(?).
Also, why do you respect others for simply having beliefs? Anyone can have a belief, even if that belief leads them (or others) to the grave. Respect is recognizing something as honorable or excellent. And I think it goes without saying that many beliefs and many religions fall under neither category.
Now, what Objectivism doesn’t leave room for are irrational beliefs. There is nothing wrong with legitimately conflicting opinions or valid criticisms; but beliefs that are anti-reason and anti-life are rejected outright. For example, the belief that “there is nothing wrong with murder” has no room in the Objectivist philosophy.
I do not yet consider myself an Objectivist, nor do I accept the tenets that I do not yet understand. I’m not a “drone” and do not appreciate you making that insult based on false assumptions. If you want to criticize Objectivism, that’s fine; but I’m asking you not to make any unfounded accusations.
–Brandon
Brandon,
It can be very difficult to prove the God does or does not exist, I agree that you can prove that if he has attributes such as omnipotence then you can disprove that, but that just shows that he cannot have those attributes.
Knowing that God exists and what he is like is a personal step. I believe in personal revelation. If you pray for an answer with real intent to listen to and follow the answer, you can know for yourself. I am not saying that God will appear to you, but I am saying is that he will communicate with you through your thoughts and feelings. You must be able to control and understand your feelings if you want to be sure you are still rational.
I know that I said that a feeling is not a compelling argument. You will not convert many people by saying you feel it to be true. But If they also feel it then their own feelings become hard to argue with. I know that God exist because I feel it, but I do not expect you to go and get baptized because of something I felt. What I feel is personal to me.
I think that we are in a war against socialism. I have meet lots of people who are fighting this war and are doing a great job. In this war I do not care if you are an atheist or not. It does no harm to me what your believe is, however it does if you are a socialist. I worry for my family, I want them to grow up in a capitalist society.
I belong to a group of FreeCapitalists. We help people become financially free so that they can help us in the war effort. Once you are financially free from debt and a job you hate, you start to become better informed about the war around you. You have more time to participate in politics and find out how to fight the war. The FreeCapitalists introduced me to Ayn Rand and I have loved finding out more about her writings.
The problem I see is that we teach 13 principles of prosperity. The first is that God is the author of prosperity. The second is that Faith begins with self interest. Right away we start having problems with the objectivists (I think you see why), we also have problems with the Christian community who say that self interest is bad. So what happens is that in stead of building an army who will fight socialism we find that we are fighting with the people who should be on our side.
Not everyone who is a FreeCapitalist will agree with everything that I have said in my previous posts. We are from different religions and their are some who are Atheists. That is fine. I hope you realize that my purpose in replying to this post is not that I am pointing my gun at you. I
wow, sorry about that I hit submit without meaning to.
I wanted to say that I also agree that the god depicted in the post by that started this is a false god. Unable to exist. But I do not think that is an accurate depiction of the God. I only want you to understand that. I just wanted to reply to help you see who God is. If you chose not do believe, that is fine I believe in agency without deception or coercion.
I have also learned a lot as we have talked back and forth. This helps me to fine tune my ideas to make sure that I am not deceived and thus am truly free to choose.
- Bryan
Bryan,
How would one know exactly what is an accurate depiction of God? You might believe differently than somebody else, but it’s just your gut feeling against his. There are thousands of religions around the world, greatly differing. So how do you know that your feelings any more accurately reveal the nature of God? You can’t. Without actual proof you have no way of convincing others or knowing for yourself that what you feel is true. To believe it anyway is an act of faith.
The consequences of acting on faith are clear. Look at those who gamble impulsively because they just feel its their lucky day. Look at the suicide bombers who eagerly kill themselves and others because of things that they just feel to be true. You might say, “I’m not doing anything of that. My belief in God is not harming anyone” (which I would dispute). But what you are doing in principle is saying, “It’s okay to follow your feelings rather than the evidence of reality,” and implicitly condoning the behavior in the aforementioned scenarios (and many others), despite what you may state explicitly. It is this which I passionately reject.
You say that in this war against socialism you do not care if the people fighting it are atheists or not, yet the first principle of FreeCapitalist is “God is the author of prosperity”. That is, of course, as you said, why you have resistance from Objectivists. I believe that if you really want to unite people for the cause of capitalism, it must be kept secular (away from faith) so that it can be fought instead by means of reason, the only way it can ever win.
–Brandon