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

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

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

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

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!

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

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.

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:

“Some time ago, medical researches learned to identify four types of blood: A, B, AB, and O. When blood was transfused from one individual to another, some of these blood types proved to be compatible while others were not (an undesirable reaction, hemolysis, occurred). For example, the blood of an A-type donor was compatible with that of an A-type recipient, but not with that of a B-type. Later, a new discovery was made: in certain cases, an undesirable reaction occurred even when blood of type A was given to an A-type recipient. Further investigation revealed another factor at work, the RH factor, which was found in the blood of some individuals but not others. The initial generalization (for short, “A bloods are compatible”) was thus discovered to hold only under a circumstance that had earlier been unidentified. Given this knowledge, the generalization had to be qualified (”A bloods are compatible if their RH factors are matched”).

The principle here is evident: since a later discovery rests hierarchically on earlier knowledge, it cannot contradict its own base. The qualified formulation in no way clashes with the initial proposition, viz.: “Within the context of circumstances so far known, A bloods are compatible.” This proposition represented real knowledge when it was first reached and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formed truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, A bloods are and always will be compatible.

The appearance of a contradiction between new knowledge and old derives from a single source: context-dropping. If the researchers had decided to view their initial discovery as an out-of-context absolute; if they were to declare–in effect, as a matter of dogma: “A bloods will always be compatible, regardless of altered circumstances”; then of course the next factor discovered would plunge them into contradiction, and they would end up complaining that knowledge is impossible. But if a man reaches conclusions logically and grasps their context nature, intellectual progress poses no threat to him; it consists to a great extent in identifying ever more fully the relationships, the connections among facts, that makes the world a unity. Such a man is not dismayed to find that he always has more to learn. He is happy about it, because he recognizes that he is expanding and refining his knowledge, not subverting it.”

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

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.

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!