Does God Exist? Ayn Rand Answers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 сер 2024
- Read Ayn Rand's essay "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made”: aynrand.org/th...
This 1973 essay explores the importance of seeing the existence of the universe as a given which needs no explanation.
These were Ayn Rand's answers to questions asked by callers to "Night Call" hosted by Dell Shields in 1969.
Is there room in your system of thought for a God? How can you account for the universe without God? How can you account for life and the wonders of the universe on the basis of accident or chance, without the concept of design?
TIMESTAMPS
(00:00) - Intro
(00:10) - Is there room in your system of thought for a God?
(00:55) - How can you account for the universe without God?
(02:25) - How can you account for life and the wonders of the universe on the basis of accident or chance, without the concept of design?
Copyright United Methodist General Commission on Archives & History, all publishing rights reserved, used by permission.
----------------------------------
Subscribe to ARI’s UA-cam channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
I love how concise her answers are. In the history of philosophy, there's a lot of confusion between the metaphysical and the epistemological. In this video, we see her identify chance as an epistemological phenomenon. Dice roll a value of 1 to 6 due to the metaphysical nature of the die. Our prediction is chance, but the die had to role the way it did to be consistent with the kind of die it is.
The study of universals was confused as Plato thought abstractions existed in another world, and Aristotle thought that abstractions were a passive identification of the form in the object. Abstractions are the human's mind method of condensing the facts of the world such that we can retain and use them. There's an epistemological method to form valid concepts based on the metaphysical nature of the things under study. It's an active process of the human mind that generates valid abstractions. Kant thought the fact we had a method meant we could not know things as themselves. He was wrong, and his influence is why modern philosophy does not call Rand one of their own.
The fundamental flaw in Rand's "philosophy" is the denial of God and the nature of reality. Because of the disdain for hypocritical religious people she tainted her own philosophy by ignoring the obvious facts of reality... Truth, Life, Love, Principle, Spirit, Intelligence... all these are aspects of the divine and cannot be created by man. Of yourself you can know nothing, by yourself you can know nothing... DNA... quantum physics... black holes... the only reason we can even approach these things is because we were made by the same intelligence that created the universe... God. Jesus came to show us the way home... and be free of it 🙏❤️🇺🇲
If, at first, AR's answers appear to be 'simplistic' or 'dogmatic', I would advise as follows: Write out a word-by-word transcript of these answers. Note how she cuts right down to the essentials. Note how she consistently applies fundamental principles. I can testify that I have learnt much from this simple technique, specifically in regard to AR's mode of thinking. I used to be prone to becoming distracted in verbal scuffles, to allowing myself to be sidetracked by people who change the topic before I get to the core of my point, and, worst of all, to getting lost in details instead of essentials, thereby missing the opportunity to show the basis on which my conclusions rest. Demanding an explanation of existence as such involves confusions of meanings that lead to a contradiction. Brilliant! Step into the trap of accepting the adversary's terms, of thinking that such a demand is a valid charge, and you're lost.
Yes
The question is misleading.
Rand does what most thinkers can't and they call it simplistic. Reducing an idea to essentials takes a complex and scrupulous use of logic that the vast majority never accomplish and they respond with "it's simplistic". Let's see them do it.
Nobody is interested in your BS "conclusions" ...Everyone has their own regarding faith principal ! 🙄
@@kitchencarvings4621
"Complex and scrupulous logic" hasn't a Diddley Dam to do with faith ! Truly useless !
🙄🤮
@@SweetChicagoGator LOL! So they do. Are they all equally, objectively right?
One of the biggest proofs of gods existence is that the Jewish nation still exists after going through almost 2k years in exile. Look at any other nation that was exiled in history and you won't find them today because they fully assimilated. That fact that the Jewish nation didn't fully assimilate is a huge miracle.
False.
Truth
Civilization without God is doomed for self destruction.
The positing of a god as proof of anything is an admission of ignorance. "God" literally means _no one_ or _nothing._
Look up any of the proofs in your old school geometry book. Also look up a bit of the history of physics or chemistry, for example how it was proven that combustion requires oxygen. Then take a critical look at your conception of two words: proof and miracle. Realise that the 'Jewish nation' that 'existed in exile for two thousand years' is no longer purely the direct descendants of the Israelites of David and Solomon, and realise that their existence does not at all prove the existence of an invisible miracle-working supernatural being.
"Man thinks and God laughs" (Yiddish proverb). "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:4).
it is always funny that the only backing you people have is the magic book you try to force on others. Do you have another line of proof?
What is someone like you doing here? Do you think to disprove reality with fairy tales?
Thought provoking and completely logicsl. What an intelligent person ❤
Right on !!!
Wow she is the only intellectual actually using her brain !!!
Thank you for posting this! These are very important identifications of metaphysical principles.
Good one. Thanks.
I bet John C. Lennox would love to debate her.
I'd pay good money to see that. She'd make a meal out of him.
Thanks
She says we don't need to explain the source of existence. Then she starts going on about this Darwinian "law of existence" which is basically a replacement for the architect of life, The Creator. Have the cake and eat it too? Philosophy sounds very smart at first but actually not so much. The more intelligent people will accept the need for a creator. Those that are more than just intelligent will actually meet him.
What she means is that the existence of something simply needs to be observed and recognized. If you choose to explain it further you are free to make the attempt, but that's not what you believe. That's fine, its your life and your mind.
Claiming intelligent people will recognize that explaining something needs a god or supernatural reference is not an alternative or a better solution, its a confession that your mind is neither capable nor necessary. I can claim the exact opposite, that intelligent people recognize that the explanation of something needs an observer with a reasoning mind. My advantage is that I will have evidence to point to as proof of my claim. You have...nothing intelligible or observable...just the assertion that a god is necessary.
Existence is observable, and observation implies a consciousness capable of observing and explaining. What point of view are you claiming when you try to explain "the source of existence?"
To attempt an explanation of *_everything_* would require you to observe... *_everything,_* which is a perspective no one has, can claim, or can argue is real. This is why the confession of ignorance - the positing of a god - is required. It's the equivalent of throwing up your hands and surrendering your mind to chronic ignorance.
@@A_friend_of_Aristotle
Actually, if you listen closely to her answer to the second question regarding the design of the universe she did in fact, either purposely or unintentionally, totally contradict herself just like I explained. Maybe I didn't explain clearly enough. She starts out saying that one cannot observe the source of design while being part of it. I don't know where this law comes from but that's how philosophy works. It's all based on flaky presumptions invented by men and probably heavily influenced by what they ate for breakfast. Immediately after that she's claiming the universe exists because of and is shaped according to "the law of identity."
I didn't say that one who is merely intelligent must believe in G-d. Again I could have better explained. Many very intelligent people don't see any clear necessity to believe. It's the more intelligent and the most intelligent that understand very well that there is a creator and a master of the world. This is not a surrender to ignorance but rather a revelation born of the love and appreciation of wisdom. The more one will observe and understand on the deepest levels of intellect so too is established a familiarity with the taste and smell of reason. It is this taste of reason that impels, if only "subconsciously," even the simpleton to seek out truth and also recognize it's smell that serves as a sort of compass or radar to correctly hypothesize and successfully locate and allocate the pieces to a very beautiful puzzle.
You may think I sound crazy and you've already accused me of being lazy. With the latter I agree and the prior it's unique to almost none. But too much typing on this phone is no fun. So I'll take a break for laziness'sake and maybe if I have more to relay it will wait for another day.
Existence exists, This is a metaphysical fact. Existence cannot be created by something outside of existence. Creation implies that something "existed" before existence was created, which is absurd because if something existed before existence was created then existence existed before there was existence. If you claim God "existed" before existence then the same absurdity applies. If you claim that existence IS God then God is not a perfect being when you consider disease and all the other imperfections that exist in the world. The concept of a God as omnipresent and benevolent is therefore absurd and a complete fantasy. There is no source of existence. Existence just is. To claim anything outside of existence you claim nothing.
She didn't propose any Darwinian "law of existence". The more intelligent people recognize the blatant stolen concept involved in proposing a creator of existence. Her point is that you are part of existence and can not explain existence by pointing to something that exists. Anyone who asks "what created existence" is asking you to prove it by non-existence, just like asking one to prove consciousness is asking one to prove it by non-consciousness.
@@kitchencarvings4621
You bring almost nothing new to the conversation other than its revival which may have some merit. Many times a second look can be much more rewarding than the first. This a phenomenon not entirely logical. Similar to my argument in favor of faith which I thought I clearly delineated is not entirely dependent on proof. Maybe try to read my previous response more slowly because I think we're beginning to run in circles. Although repetition may have great advantage as I mentioned nevertheless it requires patience and stamina that I don't find easily.
If there is no supernatural element to existence, then there is no basis for the existence of free will. She is using Christian thought without realizing it.
What is her basis for existence and that within that existence is free will?
I’m only just starting to look into her as a band I like, Rush, had taken some inspiration from her.
As a Christian, I believe one must consider how is even that we can know a thing, let alone design a thought system such as Objectivism or whatever else there is.
It will always come down to a matter of chance or design….
Take your pick on which presupposition you want to kick off from.
For my money, preconditions of intelligence, uniformity within nature and laws of
logic are things that point an intelligent designer. E.g how did mathematics evolve into place….those laws were always in existence.
However, Rand to me appears interesting and genuine. Imagine having her background, perhaps never being presented with the Gospel and peering toward a better existence.
She seems quite remarkable to me actually.
A computer chess game is not actually 'playing chess'. It's executing computations. However, because what it does is very complex, it is easier to explain what it does by describing it as playing that game. Humans may not have free will in a deterministic mathematical sense, but they do in an experiential pragmatic sense.
The "supernatural" is an invalid and self-contradictory notion. It is saying that there are some things that by their nature contradict nature. Free will is not an exception to the law of causality, it is an instance of it. Man, by his nature, has a volitional form of consciousness. When man chooses between alternatives he is just one more entity acting according to its nature.
Actually...God can be known, he has made it very easy to know him, through his Holy Spirit 🕊️,
Good one. LOL. How big is God's penis? What is HIS name? Hilarious.
@@markclipsham9199
You asked.
“21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
The Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 1.
@@larryclark9380 Oh, so a woman gave us Jesus and women are the creators of life? Why is there catnip? Try reading some history.
@@markclipsham9199
Yes a woman, Mary, was the Mother of Jesus. Common knowledge, right?
Eve, is called the mother of all living…yet she had no mother.
Gen 3:20 “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”
@@larryclark9380 A commonly shared story - not sure about the knowledge part. Jesus being the feminine aspect of a religion that was missing from the unbalanced Judaism, which is a reaction to the goddess way of life - not really a religion if studied in depth. Part of being inclusive to grow the brand as opposed to exclusive/tribal which makes people dislike you. Zionism is very much a product of practicing the smiting vengeful nature of Judaism's yahweh - see gaza - another chapter out of the OT - not conducive to making friends/alliances (trump's ultimate MO). Slaughter the people, take their land - not bothering to pretend/claim it is god's will this time. Many christians are still very confused about that - claim christianity and Jesus but practice judaism and yahweh. Jesus would not own a gun or vote republican - their policies are counter to the teachings of Jesus.
Brilliant!
I follow Objectivism but am a follower of Christ, who valued individualism
Christ valued individualism? Individualism means *"I"* over the group, tribe, family...or any notion of a god. I'm sorry, your understanding of Christianity is mistaken, and it is certainly not compatible with an objective philosophy.
@@A_friend_of_Aristotle your wrong. The central theme is unquestionably the individual. For example, one is saved as an individual, not as a group. One is responsible and accountable for his actions, not as a group.
Never mind that this Christ who allegedly valued individualism was the product of the imagination of Paul, and the Roman intellectuals looking to convert warring Jews to Roman, and Greek thinking.
What great champions of individualism your fictitious Jesus and Captain America make: both jump on grenades to save others.
@@A_friend_of_Aristotle Yes. Re-read the most well known verse of the Bible, John 3:16.
“16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
The “whosoever” is an individual.
@@loriwray4308 No individual is 'saved" by the fictional action of a fictional character. Your belief in "Christ" is rooted in a perceived emotional need that I would urge you to examine if I thought it was worth the effort. Alas, with Christians, the childlike need for a "savior" is often so irrationally intense that it cannot be penetrated by reason.
If nothing happens by chance, the probability that you will step barefoot on your dog's turd in the dark does not exist either.
That is a case of lack of knowledge of the location of the dog's turd.
If you knew where it was, and you still stepped on it, it was your free choice.
Accidents can happen, but that does not mean, that there are contradictions in the universe.
@@Jazzper79 The concept 'accident' only pertains to those things which humans do by choice. You are failing to distinguish between what is metaphysically given and the manmade.
@@kitchencarvings4621 You are right about that.
I believe in Bernardo Kastrup's take on God. To simplify, in the same way your brain is what your consciousness appears like to the one observing it, the universe as a whole is what another consciousness - God's consciousness - appears like to anyone observing it. There's nothing but consciousness.
In our brains, neural activity is the mechanism of action behind our consciousness. In the universe, what is the mechanism of action behind god's consciousness? Is it the movement of celestial bodies or what? And what indication is there for that? Clearly, it is an empty postulate that is neither demonstrable nor falsifiable. It is nothing but a poetic description of the universe from a human perspective - wishful thinking, but almost definitely untrue.
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 No, neural activity is the *2nd person* perspective of our mental activities. Neural activity exists *in the observer's perceptions,* and it's not what causes the observed's consciousness.
To simplify, we have the same reason to believe that the universe is the 2nd person perspective of consciousness as we have to believe brains are the 2nd person perspective of consciousness. I guess you could say that it's "neither demonstrable nor falsifiable" to believe other people are conscious, but somehow I don't think you doubt at all that other people are conscious.
Consciousness of what? Blank out.
@@kitchencarvings4621 Not sure what you're asking for.
You said that nothing exists but consciousness. Consciousness of what?
Another time when the question was asked... "how do you explain the universe without god", Rand responded with... "How do you explain god?"
"Nothing happens by chance." Quantum mechanics would disagree. On small enough scales, pretty much everything is chance. This is one of the difficulties with continuing Moore's Law.
Technology doesn’t happen by chance. The physics of laser light generation is repeatable. Perhaps you could try to say which photons emitted particles in which order was random, but that is nonsense, the process is predictable.
Not on Rand's conception of chance. Just because we can't measure something or predict it does not mean it is chance. It is in the nature of quantum fields to behave in certain ways that we might not yet be able to measure but it's the nature of a thing that dictates its actions.
Physicists acknowledge QM is incomplete, hence the probabilistic ('chance') elements of it likely come down to lack of human understanding, as opposed to the fundamental nature of the universe.
@@willnitschkeYes, It's the events-based view of causality that trips people into thinking that quantum effects are random.
Plenty of evidence of Design. DNA is information. It is not rational to think a complex design was self generating.
There are a few basic design concepts in the universe with many derivations - this is why so many things are analogous and/or metaphorical. Swirling waters - are very much like tornadoes. hurricanes, some kinds of galaxies etc. A tree is very much like our circulation system etc. Balance is key - all equations must balance - karma. Religion is science with a lot of man's law frosting.
The issue is not about whether there is design or not. Clearly there is. The issue is whether the design is 'intelligent' (planned) or a consequence of unthinking computation.
So is the slope of a beach or boulders in a river. Are you claiming that these things are designed?
@@willnitschke The first atom bumped into the second and here were are. god's (little g) law's are immutable, infallible and perfect - there is no cheating - that is the lesson we need to learn. Learn the laws and live with them in peace. Good/kindness always triumphs eventually after evil/ignorance/intolerance has done much damage. The bible(s) are god's laws corrupted by God's (man's) laws via selfish weakness. The bible warns of this as the science of the day - still quite applicable - scrape the God (patriarchal religion with an idol with a first name and gender - bizarre - a mental graven image) part off and the good stuff is there to use and learn from. The wonderful wisdom of Job/Sirach was obviously lifted from somewhere else (pagan.goddess most likely - like so much else in the bible) and embellished with patriarchal religious frosting - they marked it with their scent if you catch my drift.
@@kitchencarvings4621 They simply and perfectly are.
If we simply do things according to our nature, not by chance or design, then where does morality come in? Who decides what is moral and good? It’s all a matter of subjective desire.
Morality is natural. It's "built" into us.
@@willnitschke so why do we do immoral things? That is natural too.
@@solb101 Both are natural, correct.
@@willnitschke so our nature is good and bad? How do we know what is right?
@@willnitschke so we are both good and bad? How can any good come from a bad nature or vice versa?
On the one hand she says all this, but on the other hand believes and accepts evolution (which is not something which has ever been observed or proven). Seems like giving up one religious worldview just leads to the acceptance (replacement with) another.
I thought evidence for the theory of evolution is everywhere.
@@kennyfernandez2866 Official support for it is ubiquitous, but evidence is not there. Has anyone seen (for example) life coming from non-life?
@@Procopius464 what are you talking about? Nobody has said anything about how life started. It is still a mystery.
Are you another Jesus freak?
So the genetic tree is not evidence for you? The fact there is correlation between species and their genes. Gene mutation. And fossil records. ???
@@Procopius464 nobody has seen a dinosaur, yet there is record. There is a record in our genetic code. Nobody has seen a planet form. But there is geological record. There are things that go beyond pur slice of time, but evidence is all around for it. You can't see certain phenomena, but it's effect is left everywhere.
Everything that exists has a god. The rational definition of god is the excuse one uses to justify one’s own existence. If it is tangible and conceptualized, then it immediately disqualifies certain types of creation from having a justification to exist equally to one’s self. Therefore, a person that claims to be fair and inclusive, must then justify their existence to an abstract source so that all creation can continue to exist despite its differences.
She fails to recognize this part, and which is why many individuals that follow AR’s philosophy turn into tyrants bc they believe that they are self sufficient when they are at the mercy of the surroundings of their existence, and then use their powers to then justify their existence over others when neither their own existence nor the existence of others is within their control, but with the control of whatever is orchestrating this existence that exists outside of the realm of anything we can possibly imagine entirely.
Don’t throw out God. Keep God objective and rational by keeping God abstract and consolidated. Remove any subjectivity surrounding God. Only then can humans remain just and fair despite our differences while simultaneously answering to no one other than God. She had the ability to do this but chose not to, either due to ignorance, but due to her intelligence I don’t believe that to be the case. I think she was arrogant and stubborn that she couldn’t relinquish control over accepting that rationally she has to admit to relinquishing control to an entity. She somehow failed to recognize that that entity doesn’t want a single thing from her and that her argument would still remain intact, but then it would require her to recognize the humble beginnings of everyone’s existence and require her to show graciousness to others in order for them to maintain a chance to develop ability rather than look upon “the weak” with disdain and contempt. The latter requires patience and graciousness that she was unwilling to give. That is why she died alone.
This is just meaningless babble, sorry.
Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.
Awareness of what? Blank out!
Are you not self aware?
The universe has a "person-ality" (a very anthropocentric term) just like anything with multiple characteristics, like water or a rock. The universe has many characteristics which makes for a complex personality - but it is not unknowable and does not have gender, genitalia, favorites (except possibility for people that understand god's laws that cannot be cheated and follow them) or a first name. The universe is biased towards truth and kindness - they take less energy - they are less entropic. It takes a lot of energy to maintain a lie or be mean - it takes the energy out of the system trying to perpetuate it - it will not last. Truth takes care of its self and kindness gives energy not takes it.
This is why "good" (wisdom/knowledge) will always triumph over "evil" (ignorance/intolerance). Without suffering character is not built.
Brilliant.
In a perfectly functioning body on a perfect planet in a perfect solar system. Imagine there is no creator only chance for perfection. Each planet, even the moon perfectly in place. Keep in mind only man made things are destructive to our bodies and our planet.
If life exists not by chance rational thinking would then suggest a creator created life purposefully.
So the whole theory of evolution thing confused you?
@@willnitschke Attacking me is not an argument.
@@user-ji2on8eg3l Pointing out your obvious ignorance is not an 'attack'. It's just a fact, sadly.
@@willnitschke Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Calling me ignorant instead of forming an argument is an attack on me not my statement.
Ayn Rand says in the video that life did not happen by chance. Evolution says different.
@@user-ji2on8eg3l Explaining why someone is ignorant, if the argument is correct, which it is, is not a logical fallacy. It's a statement of fact. The theory of evolution teaches us that life is not created 'purposefully' but through a process of natural selection, which is commonly called 'chance'.
I'm sorry that me pointing out your ignorance hurts your feelings. But rather than complain about that to me, what you should do is try to educate yourself.
But your question makes zero sense to my reply
you have to start somewhere, so start with what exists, not "why" it exists.
People need to know their boundaries, and they don't. They clearly think they can go on forever and ever to the next "why", to the next required explanation, etc.
This is why they fail: they do not recognize the boundary...
The boundary is what exists...
You step outside and nothing guides you, except your imagination- which is fine, as long as you know it and not because you NEED it...
It is the boundary people want to remove because it is a finite issue- one cannot go any further...
Existence - what exists- is as much a boundary as the speed of light...
And how does one determine what "exists" and what does not "exist" ?
Does (or did) the Big Bang exist?
Phlogiston existed (?), but now it no longer exists. Yet the observations that constituted phlogiston, did not change.
Could she be called a Spinozist/Pantheist like Einstein and Sagan? She's literally quoting Spinoza!!
I KNOW ghosts or spirits or whatever the f you want to call them exist. I’ve seen and experienced it first hand. There is zero physical or natural law that can explain it, but I know damn sure what I experienced. So if there can be the existence of entities in realms not of this one, then there can certainly be a God or a higher power! So, as much as I admire and respect Ayn, I can’t agree w her fully on this.
So are dreams and hallucinations real by virtue of you experiencing them?
2 errors in these thoughts:
1 - If there is nothing but the material, there is no chance. Everything had a cause.
If so, then free will cannot exist. since all your actions are caused by something outside of you.
2 - If everything has a cause, then how can the universe not have a cause?
Prior to modern science, some argued that the universe had no beginning. There have always been logical reason that refuted this, but now science points clearly at a beginning of everything.
Something that exists necessitates a cause.
It's irrelevant if a universe has a 'cause' or not have a 'cause'. Existence still exists, irrespective of the answer to this question.
More philosophically, a system does does not need to have a cause, even if everything in that system is causal. So you're confused about that also.
Your actions are caused by your nature as a being with volitional consciousness. Objectivism does not hold that everything that exists is material. It holds that everything that exists has identity and that everything acts in accordance with its identity.
@@kitchencarvings4621 so no choice?
@@reasontemple Yes, you have free will. You can observe yourself making choices. Those who don't understand why we can make choices attribute it to an invisible, magic being. It's not magic but causality or the law of identity applied to action.
It sounds like she believes in the steady state theory.
Bloody right!
No
She Says that nothing happens by chance. I agree. It means existence doesn't happen by chance also. But why IS she refusing to question the reason of existence?
Great question. That IS the question. Ultimately, she becomes Kantian in the end. Who would've thought? The reason for existance is the core and most important part.
I wonder if you can call your philosophy rational or objectivistic without explaining existance.
@@kennyfernandez2866 I think you were confused about her argument. It was not about "explaining" existence, but whether existence is predicated on an explanation. If you're insisting existence does not exist unless you can explain it, then you're engaging in a self contradiction.
She did. You must have been dozing off in class. She explained why the very idea of a reason for existence is nonsensical.
@@kitchencarvings4621 Yeah. But that is an assumption. Even if she finds some rationalization, she does not engage with the question. It is not non sensical, it is a legitimate space fpr thought. And not only that. It is the question and reality that anchors everything else, obviously.
@@kitchencarvings4621 She critizices Kant for giving up on the intelect, but she does exactly the same when it comes to this question.
Her explanation of chance or probability in the universe seems to be based on a pre-quantum mechanics determinism. This was common in classical and 19th century physics, but all modern physicists understand that God does in fact play dice.
Incorrect. Physicists acknowledge QM is incomplete, hence the probabilistic ('chance') elements of it likely come down to lack of human understanding, as opposed to the fundamental nature of the universe.
@@willnitschke No. The violation of the Bell Inequality which won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics established that it is a fundamental property of reality, and not some lack of human knowledge.
@@thaddeuspawlicki4707 Wrong. The bell inequality established that local realism cannot be correct. If this was the ultimate theory of everything, physicists would not having spent countless time and effort into trying to formulate a theory of quantum gravity, knucklehead.
Her very first statement can not be identified, perceived , or demonstrated by reason. Philosophy itself can not be proven by the same method. It must be assumed. As C.S. Lewis once said, she's sawing off the very same branch she sits upon. Logical fallacy.
That is not what she claimed. You skipped half of her philosophy (metaphysics & epistemology), no wonder you think you found a contradiction.
Of course, it can, by applying the primacy of existence principle which can be validated by perception. All knowledge begins with perceiving something.
Does God exist? Yes. How? Beyond human comprehension, which is WHY the scientists all over the world don't want to admit He is someone and something they can't dissect and analyze. But God designed, created, and gave life to humanity. People want to see God? They have with the Messiah Jesus. Who was ever a better role model for our lives, the path to righteousness and redemption for sinners? No one. Why do people not care about these things? Because eight billion people will not all believe the truth. God save us all.
*Does God exist? Yes. How? Beyond human comprehension*
So if he's beyond comprehension how do you comprehend him, i.e., assume his existence? You just contradicted yourself.
And what is the central message of "Jesus"? Sacrifice the ideal to the non-ideal, the good to the evil, the righteous to the unrighteous. Nothing can be more anti-life than this message.
@@kitchencarvings4621 Jesus is God in human form, and so He can't be fully understood by human minds. But what He did, dying a criminal's death for His people, was the greatest sacrifice anyone could ever offer. Humans brought sin into the world and Jesus offers them the gift of eternal life and peace. Hell is separation from God, and He will not force anyone to come to Him and receive the gift of eternal life. People are born of flesh which dies. Those who are reborn of the Holy Spirit, which never dies, have the chance to live forever with their LORD and Savior. It's their choice. Anti-life is dismembering a living baby at birth and forcing a nation to legalize it. Anti-life is blaming that baby for the mother's rape.
@@willnitschke We comprehend His existence because of His people the Jews. God was their King that led them out of Egypt and across an ocean to escape slavery. His witnesses were murdered because they shared the message of His existence. All religions acknowledge Him at some point. But since they can't fully understand Him, they change the story of who He is so they can try to understand Him. Can a finite mortal being understand an infinite immortal God? God created life, and we live because of Him. "Where did God come from?" If He wanted humans to know, He would have told them. People still don't understand the world we live in, but they deny all consideration of the existence of the Creator. That doesn't change the truth.
@@youknowho4439 Then Jesus is a walking contradiction. He is a god in the form of not-God. It's a fantasy.
"Only that which Man can grasp, perceive, identify and demonstrate by means of reason".
Clearly she never read much about the Philosopher named Christ.
Probably not, as Christ was not a philosopher.
@@willnitschke No, he was much more. Even so, he still contributed much to Philosophy.
@@beestoe993 No he wasn't, and no he didn't. If you were right, you could have offered examples but you couldn't. You just repeated your brain fart all over again.
@@willnitschke Don't be a bitter man. No one asked for examples. Maybe you should try reading what Napoleon had to say about Jesus.
@@beestoe993 Nobody is "bitter" in this exchange, champ, except possibly you. I'm just calling out people's bullshit. Napoleon was not a philosopher either, in case you're confused by that as well. Jesus was a religious leader. He made no contributions to philosophy whatsoever. I would argue he did make significant contributions to ethics, however.
Nobody can prove that God does not exist.
Life itself is proof God exists.
Neither can you prove that invisible unicorns don't exist. Do you believe in invisible unicorns?
@@tobiasbogner4147 beliefs and disbeliefs leave you in the same place... attached to an idea that doesn't exist. Best not to play that game.
@@glennjohn3824 exactly
@@tobiasbogner4147 amusing how glennjohn shot down his argument with his own argument.
My read was always that she didn't object to the idea of God per se, but to arriving at that conclusion on the basis of faith
She most certainly did. Did you listen to her words.
Believing in a"God," a loving, peaceful God, one that is typical of peace & love, can not be a bad thing. I don't care if you believe it or not, but each person has the right to believe in a God, aliens, or whatever they choose.
My point is that there is zero harm in believing in a loving God & generally people who believe behave better. I see no downside.
*My point is that there is zero harm in believing in a loving God...*
Until they start blowing things up, sure.
What you are saying is that there is zero harm in holding contradictions.
People who believe behave better.
Sorry but no.
@@jogendron6320 Probably true, though.
Aristotle makes reference to a ‘prime mover’!
Aristotle was not always right. 🙂
And that is valid how?
@@geekonomistaccording to Aristotle, it is an inevitable consequence of following logic to it's end.
@@geekonomistAnd I agree. Cuz Rand stops at not wanting to explain existance, in order to explain something you have to go beyond it. Even if just to be able to see it as a whole. So ultimately she did not wish to either transcend or to see logic to its end.
@@kennyfernandez2866 *according to Aristotle...*
Is an argument from an authority, hence based on nothing.
The fool has said in his heart there is no God.
Said the guy selling his cult...
Says the one who believes in invisible, magic beings that exist outside of existence. This comment is like a drive-by, throwaway comment.
Boy!! was shes wrong to blind to see!! jesus is the way to heaven to much intelligence gets in the way of the truth!! but very smart i give it that!!
Yeah the Magical Sky God spoke to you...
Lol! How can we reliably distinguish this thing you call "God" from something that you are merely imagining?
How did recording this fall into the copyright of a religious organization?
Arbitrary IP laws most likely.
In 1992 the Estate of Ayn Rand donated a portion of the Ayn Rand Papers to the Library of Congress. In 1995, the Estate placed the remaining papers with the Ayn Rand Institute, to which it is gradually transferring ownership.
So, maybe the UM general commission on archives & history is part of that, don't know for sure.
You mean the Ayn Rand Institute?
zing
@@EricSmith9000 It's a cheap shot, "zinged" by someone confessing no understanding of the difference.
@@A_friend_of_Aristotle
Closed dogma + Central figure worship + adoption of the philosophy into individual identity seems pretty religious to me.
Nothing happens by chance cuz God Fates us all !! 🙏
Why do you think that?
@@daviddedick14
Prayer helps to make good fate a stronger possibility ! 🙏
@@SweetChicagoGator So do you think we have free will or does your God have everything planned out for us? In which case are all our actions predetermined by God? If we pray for a certain outcome does God bend his plans a bit for a better fate for us?
If God has everything planned for you, there is no free will, hence nothing you can do is good or evil as it's foreordained. If God therefore punishes your evil deeds, he must be the ultimate evil being.
@@willnitschke
U are very jaded or confused?We are born with Free Will Grace from God, therefore God is good, not evil ! Don't be confused with the demon !
Second
There is no god.
Where?
Most reasonable atheists (oxymoron) abstain from making such an affirmation, because making such an affirmation requires proof.
Most reasonable atheists limit themselves to statements like: there is no conclusive evidence for God.
Unfortunately, such statements should make one, agnostic, rather than an atheist.
The priest of atheism, Chris Hitchens, once said: there is no absolute truth and no absolute moral standards.
Yet, for some reason, he affirmed it as such. I suppose even the greatest of atheist, have their blind-sides…
You see, dear, for an atheist to claim reliance on logic, reason and the scientific method is like a blind girl claiming to be able to see into a room without windows or doors.
And since you made an affirmative statement, you now need to prove it. And don’t bother responding until you do.
Define "God" first, then decide if there is or isn't.
…only Zule!
There is no Milky Way
Argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is upon he who makes an affirmative claim. He who says there is a God must follow with proof, in the rational scientific sense, of proof. Objectivists, when they say, God does not exist, mean simply that. Until you offer the proof, it is just a fantastical, hollow, claim.
Claiming God does not exist, is a negative claim, which has the same problems as an affirmative claim. Both types of claim assert something is true without evidence.
@@willnitschke You are correct, that is why I clarified the argument. As an Objectivist, I do not say “God does not exist”. I say to those who claim there is a God to prove it. Without proof it is just a meaningless assertion. Without proof I am free to think and act as though God, the Easter Bunny and Aliens do not exist, because they have not been shown to exist. This same process of thought does not merely apply to Deities, it applies to every claim, scientific, historic, and so on. What is no proven to exist should not be treated as if it does.
Your bias is showing.
And stop touching kids.
@@bendrixbailey1430 Rand very definitely asserts "God does not exist".
@@willnitschke Yes, and that is an abbreviated response, as is clear from an understanding of the Argument from Ignorance. The full response is ““God does not exist” anywhere but in your mind because you cannot demonstrate its existence.”. The burden of proof in science and logic is upon the affirmative statement. People who claim God exists are making affirmative statements for which no existential proof can be offered. Therefor, in shorthand “God does not exist”
Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Christianity demands people look at the evidence in a fair and objective way.
The Roman and Jewish historians Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger corroborate what ancient Christians believed. Jesus lived, taught, was crucified under Pilate, Jesus' followers claimed strange and superstitious beliefs (the resurrection), John the Baptist and James were executed. Christianity is rooted in historical people and events that actually occurred.
Ayn Rand's beliefs that man has a right to what he works for, altruism is an individual endeavor that should not be compelled by society, are not out of alignment with Christianity. Case in point, the good Samaritan. Nobody made him care for the injured man. He chose to do that of his own volition. That is true altruism. Socialism/Communism is not altruistic
Faith is acceptance without evidence or proof. This is either passive or active avoidance of your reasoning faculty. A person who accepts faith completely is worse than an animal.
Reason is a mans faculty of integrating the evidence of his senses. It involves observation, differentiation and integration. It is the conscious act of thinking, of drawing conclusions and, some would argue, turning them into action...which provides the feedback necessary to improve his conclusions and flourish as a human being.
Faith and Reason are related only in that they both require a choice...otherwise, they are polar opposites.
I respectfully disagree with your understanding of faith. We don't have to look to religion to come to this understanding. We can look to politics or sports. I have faith the American Congress will continue to accumulate debt for my country and not pay it off. This faith is based on evidence of the fact they've consistently grown debt without paying it off. Ever.
As you stated, reason is based on man's faculties. I've used these faculties to examine the writings of the NT and compared it to the writings of 1st and 2nd century contemporarie,, coming to the conclusion the NT is telling the truth regarding Jesus.
*Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.*
Actually they are.
*Christianity demands people look at the evidence in a fair and objective way.*
If they did that, they wouldn't be Christians.
@@willnitschke
Examining the evidence objectively means looking at all available sources on Jesus. His existence and execution are recorded in Tacitus' Annals of Rome as well as Josephus' History of the Jews. 1st and 2nd century documents. There is also the letters from Pliny the Younger to Trajan about what to do with Christians in the late 1st century and details their beliefs and practices.
What I take away from these sources is that Jesus lived, taught, and was executed as the New Testament describes. His followers believed they truly saw him physically risen from the dead and were willing to face persecution and execution to proclaim it.
If you have evidence, why call it faith? They are mutually exclusive. Faith has its basis in the metaphysical primacy of consciousness and reason has its basis in the metaphysical primacy of existence. They are irreconcilable.
"Existence does not require explanation." Spoken like a true atheist. Yes, existence DOES require explanation and that explanation is that a divine and all-powerful being created everything in the universe. To assume nothing has to have an explanation is to deny willfully that all of the universe came about with no rhyme or reason. That my friend is the thoughts of a complete fool. So, go on and seek any explanation for our existence other than the only true and logical one. You won't like where you end up in eternity. You are a created being and that same God who made you is both your Creator as well as your Judge.
While an explanation is more desirable than a non-explanation, and denying the possibility of an explanation even worse, reality does not "require" to do anything for you, merely because you wish it.
The day people stopped believing in real gods and started believing in imaginary ones that mark the end of evolution for the smart people.
Right so there are 'real' imaginary beings and 'fake' imagery beings. 🤣
@willnitschke the sun & the moon are reals moron !!!!
@@somozasi Are you now arguing with the voices in your head?
The idea of 'god' is the silliest ever idea........
What's silly about knowing God?
All thoughts are all lies all the time especially about God... pretty silly to deny your own existence lol
By what means you claim to know God ?@@glennjohn3824
@@glennjohn3824And yet many of the most brilliant minds that ever existed believed in that silly idea.
@@plagueday5395 belief and disbelief leaves you in the same predicament... attached to an idea that isn't real. No matter how "brilliant" the brain that's pretty silly. Hard to claim brilliance if you're denying reality... I suggest letting go of the idea of brilliant people and focus on getting rid of your own attachment to fallacies and imagination.
To look at a sequence of DNA and claim there is no God or "design of nature" as she put it is just ignorant and reduces objectivism to a horoscope of intellectual idolatry and materialism. Love her books but she's an amateur philosopher who left out the key element of reality. Stay free 🙏❤️🇺🇲
Dude, you have no idea what DNA is and you are keen to demonstrate it.
1. 90% of our DNA is leftover viral DNA, obsolete copies of other strands and such junk. Our mitochondria itself is a foreign organism entrapped in our cells to work for us! We even have the ability to synthetize Vitamin C in our DNA, but it's inactivated! How's that for design?
2. Complexity is the opposite of design because perfect design aims to minimize complexity while maintaining function. This is why engineers don't build pointless Rube Goldberg machines.
3. Also, complexity is an emergent process. Conway's Game of Life is proof of that. With a few simple rules, a Turing-complete mechanism is defined that can create breathtaking complexity out of randomness. Just like our universe.
4. Besides, even if DNA was seemingly an example of perfect design, that's still the god of the gaps fallacy - you'd say "DNA is perfect, therefore god" - while it is possible to achieve perfection even randomly. You could throw 100 dice and have them all land on 6. Confirmation bias dictates that you only notice the one planet that has life and not the millions of other planets that we know are unhospitable.
5. The fact that you called Rand "amateur" is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect... You're incompetent, but you don't know that, so you call the competent incompetent.
+1: And the fact that you ended your comment with "stay free" is ironic, considering you believe in a tyrant deity that forces dogma on people and hates dissent...
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 whoa... lol. I can't address all the projecting and emotional attachment to fallacies in your response. You're as emotional as a Bible thumper with just about as much wisdom... smh. Don't cry about it, be grateful you were given life by the creator. You don't even understand what you are and you over here trying to explain DNA 🤣🤣🤣
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 I believe in Jesus' message and the Constitution of the United States of America...we don't do tyranny.
Stay free 🙏❤️🇺🇲
The constitution is based on the Deist God of Nature, not the Jesus.
The God of Nature is the most perfect Being, and the Natural Law which would be His creation must also be perfect.
The Natural Law is therefore immutable and miracles can not be the acts of God.
Thus, Christianity like any other religion that claims miracles exist can never be true (or even valid).
Prayer would also not work, as Natural Law must apply to all forever, no exceptions.@@glennjohn3824
@@glennjohn3824 So, you don't believe in the all knowing sky father? The one who controls and sees everything? You don't know what tyranny is, bud.
She accepts free will exists.. If it exists only by mankind.. She was a theist
Because you say so? 🤣
What? That doesn't even make a lick of sense.
The world is very subjective. A lot of Objectivists have been bullied into leaving their religion. I used to be an Objectivist, but I grew up.
You grew up? You mean you gave up. Objectivism isn't difficult to understand for someone who has never believed, but that's not the general state of mankind right now...too many believers and not enough thinkers. I imagine going it alone in thought and action can be distressing. The idea of having no controlling authority that watches you when you sleep, hears your most intimate thoughts, sees everything you do, feel, etc. must be very hard to give up.
It's easier if you never accepted the idea in the first place...🤔
No, I grew up. BTW Aristotle encouraged discussion not self-righteous arguing assholes like Ayn Rand, who are never wrong.
When you actually stop being arbitrary, and can address her arguments, let us know.
*The world is very subjective.*
No it's not. Decide that jumping off a cliff is not going to end in death. Report back on how that worked out for you.
Well then, that's may be true for you but it's not true for me. If the world is subjective then why argue about anything. Everyone can have their own private world.
"Nothing happens by chance" she says... lol... except for one miracle she refuses to acknowledge. 🙏❤️🇺🇲
I don't think anyone who believes in miracles can really criticize or mock anyone. You are the joke, buddy.
@@creatorsremose lol... you don't believe in miracles yet you exist... amazing demonstration of cognitive dissonance. 🤣🤣🤣
If its a miracle any individual human exists then there are 8 billion miracles now, and 110 Billion miracles in human history. And therefore miracles are rather ordinary, and not extraordinary. And they make up a function of the basics of life. And therefore they are not an anomaly of reality and therefore miracles are not miracles.
The true miracle is how believers are at war against pro-choice when their god killed his own son.
I assume you mean the miracle of Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse?
@@roblovestar9159 ooh... your Dr Faucci face diaper must be too tight. Take a breath and try again.
She says "there is no design, there is no chance, there is only nature" ok how do things compliment eachother like male and female? No life is formed by chance, there is compatible design between male and female which, sure, contributes to our nature. Why not just have a random big bang, few minutes of chaotic activity, then death of it all due to lack of compatibility? Maybe there is a very complicated composition to the air we breathe and food we eat that, ya know, sustains life 😂
Barely sustains life.
@@DuhYaThinkdoes a great job sustaining life and the universe if we don't destroy it all attempting to make it "better" 🤯
In short, male and female aren't primaries: they can be broken down into evolutionary causes and precedents (by evolutionary biologists, not so much by me). Cell division preceded the earliest male/female dimorphism, and those creatures had no choice about it. Over time they changed through mutation, natural selection and other factors, and had no choice about it. Eventually we reach modern humans where transwomen like me are just _starting_ to have a choice about a little bit of it. 🙂
There is only nature in the sense that "A is A", which means that a thing is itself and can only act _according_ to its nature - as she said in the audio. The nature of humans (and any other volitional creatures in the universe) is that our nature is such that more things are under our control than for other creatures.
Your "lack" of compatibility statement would mean that your early universe could only act according to its nature, but couldn't _interact_ due to its nature.
Anyone who looks at a DNA sequence and still asserts there is no design to the universe is an imbecile or in denial... there are no coincidences or chance events, we are all children of the lie in a fallen state of egotistical consciousness until we wake up to reality.
Stay free 🙏❤️🇺🇲
@@VaraLaFey T is a legal fallacy, doesn't actually exist, sex is immutable. I could get a horn attached to my forehead and it wouldn't make me a unicorn 🤯 isn't compatible with reality. Choice has nothing to do with anything i said or reality. I could tell you my skin is purple and it's not true. Gotta laugh at how you just randomly started rambling about your wank. Typical 😂
God exists because I identify and experience his existence, can study and learn about God via stories written about him just like Rand has a philosophy built around characters in a story 😂
By what means are you aware of this god, I mean besides stories in a book?
I believe nature ,Mother Earth. There are many creation stories before the Christian Bible.
@@DuhYaThinksure, they we're trying to figure things out then Jews came along and BLEW OUR MINDS 🤯😂
It has to be inter-subjectively testable or objectively demonstrable, otherwise it is just faith.
You might be able to construct an argument for God based on this being the best way of making sense of existence. But this wouldn't really be a scientific argument as such.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 One thing I've noticed is that if I accepted any of the arguments for gods, I'd still have no choice but to imagine the thing proved. In fact, there is no way to think about gods but to use my imagination. They are indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary which tells me that they are all imaginary.
So what's her stance on nature? Random and by chance? 😂
It exists for you to observe and find out the how's and why's. You're free to observe and think, or observe and not think...its your choice.
@@A_friend_of_Aristotle how was it created 🤡
@@terrorists-are-among-us Are you pretending to know? A lot of pretending going on in the comments section. 🤡
As in scientism philosophy-ism is limited
Limited to reality.
@@HANU8
Without getting tribalistic, who’s reality?
I am skeptical of the scientism myopic worldview, and find it to be as cult-ish of the gaps as anything
Ultra-Hyper-Mega Dumb
Stay in school kid
Who cares what a failed philosopher says 😂
From your comments here, you do.