Then Bakerstreet needs to point out the flaws in his arguments and show why they haven't been sufficiently supported rather than just posting that JG is a lunatic, and therefore wrong.

Bakerstreet isn't the one who claimed that the universe is infinite and yet constantly expanding. John Galt did.

If I say that Star Wars is 100% objectively true, then it's my responsibility to prove it, not your responsibility to disprove it.

No, my point wasn't that everything is science, it was that everything is based on science, so I don't understand why there is a problem with using science (facts) to support a theory or philosophy. I think it's impossible not to.

If I say, "Santa Claus is real because of Occam's Razor," is that using science to support a theory? If so, then I understand what you're saying.

Bakerstreet: People have "personal philosophies" for a reason: they believe them to be completely true. Why should JG give and support his theory that he believes to be entirely true, but preface it with "This isn't necessarily true" just because some people disagree with him? It seems to me that you are just as certain of the truth of your statements as he is of his.

Most people are humble enough to admit that there's some faith in their beliefs and not pretend that their beliefs are 100% objectively true. If you think your beliefs are 100% objectively true and there's no way for them to be wrong and that faith isn't a factor in any of them, well, then good for you, but most people are aware of their fallibility.

messybuu- I think you're misunderstanding me. I am NOT trying to say that JG is completely right because BakerStreet never proved him wrong. My point is simply that saying JG is crazy and mean doesn't show why JG is wrong and why his arguments aren't supported. If you want to point ou that he is wrong, then do it. You've both done it in some places. If you think is theory is insane, just say so. If you think something he stated is completely false, say so. I'm not in any way saying that JG doesn't have to prove what he says. I'm saying that you need to point out that he hasn't proven anything instead of just saying that he's a bad person because that doesn't prove anything either. Some of the things you've both said are true, and some things are just plain unnecessary.

messybuu- I think you're misunderstanding me. I am NOT trying to say that JG is completely right because BakerStreet never proved him wrong. My point is simply that saying JG is crazy and mean doesn't show why JG is wrong and why his arguments aren't supported. If you want to point ou that he is wrong, then do it. You've both done it in some places. If you think is theory is insane, just say so. If you think something he stated is completely false, say so. I'm not in any way saying that JG doesn't have to prove what he says. I'm saying that you need to point out that he hasn't proven anything instead of just saying that he's a bad person because that doesn't prove anything either. Some of the things you've both said are true, and some things are just plain unnecessary.

1) I've mentioned the contradiction in John Galt's argument a few times, yet neither you nor he has acknowledged it. Why is that?
2) We have pointed out why he hasn't proven anything. We have explained what's wrong with his argument. Why do you still ignore it?
3) You're going to have to explain what part of John Galt's argument is true and support it with evidence.

So be happy, the universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another No matter what belief you have, big bang started the universe or God did, you still have the chicken and the egg. If God created the universe, who created God?

So John, what is the difference between saying "The universe has always existed and will always exist" and "God has always existed and will always exist?" It seems to me that you are willing to accept a universe in spite of the fact that you can't explain what created it, but then you use the fact that no one can explain what created God as an argument that God cannot exist.

Just curious about what your explanation might be.[

Molly: again, ..

J.G.'s flaw isn't in the details of his theory, it is that he is proposing untestable assumption as outright fact. I could assert that the birds in the Galapagos are identical to the ones in my backyard. You would assume I am wrong, but you'd be obligated to go there to really prove it. J.G makes statements about places we can't go; times we can't venture to and for which we have no record. That's barely good enough for hypothesis, since it is untestable. Worse, he's not proposing theories, he's stating his ideas as if they were philosophical TRUTH.

He's telling you how the universe works, far outside the realm of his expertise and ability to observe, and then daring us to prove him wrong. He doesn't know these things any more than anyone else. They seem logical to him, and he assumes.


His conclusions are based on the assumption that everything, everywhere, everyWHEN works as it does here. Anything he states as fact based upon such assumptions isn't scientific. So, when he finishes his nutty rants, it makes sense to him because he has already swallowed his assumptions. Some of us know better, and see that without those big leaps of faith, the theories don't hold up...

He calls himself a adherant of reason and logic, waves science around like a baseball bat, and then constructs huge towers of "logic" made of assumption and personal philosophy. Then he goes off the deep end with all the "evil" stuff and rants about religion and comminism. Is that objectivity? Hardly.

The issue is someone calling themselves a beliver in objective reason, and then stating assumptions as if they more valid than anyone else's. So, when J.G makes asinine statements like he can disprove God, etc., he talking out of his ass. He can theorize, he can submit an untestable hypothesis, but in the end all he has is belief, just like the rest of us.

Molly:

You stated that people's philosophies are their philosophies because they believe them to be absolutely true. But see subjectivists don't. They believe that what they believe is just as equally as wrong as everyone else's belief system. Hence why they can say that I'm wrong, and have no proof for it and believe that it's justified in saying it, because they have made the assumption that all humans will always be wrong, because we don’t ever have the facility to be right because we're just dumb animals with 5 senses and can be nothing more and thus are a slave to those 5 senses and they cloud us and always will result in skewed results because we can't possibly reach an "objective" position because perspective will always interfere. That is the key to their philosophy, it is the basis for all of this. It is why they make the statement "you're wrong" and don't feel they need to prove it. It's self-evident to them. This key point is also why I use the world evil in relation to subjectivists. Because the assumption of being wrong necessarily requires that the next logical step (unless you're a hypocrite) which is that there is no point in learning anything because it will be wrong anyhow, thus embracing ignorance.

Thank you for being the only one that has actually contributed and asked questions and pointed out things that you didn’t understand or agree with and ask me to defend my position or clarify it. It is for people like you that I write, because it is people like you that I can learn from, refine my position, and in the process, perhaps, provide in trade, thoughts that you might not have considered.

Everyone else:

1. Philosophy is the first science. Thus science and philosophy go hand in hand. If physics is the root of all other sciences (which it is) then philosophy is the root of all physics. Why? Because philosophy is the study of our understanding of the universe and why we believe what we believe. Further, it is the study (Epistemology, a sub-sect of philosophy) of how we learn and why we learn what we do. It is the very thing that allows us objectivity through the study of our perspective so that we can use that point of reference to calculate any position from any perspective. (i.e. This is why we could tell exactly where we are in the known universe from any point in the universe at any time so long as we had star charts from earth and knew exactly what time it is. This is proof that point of view can be overcome and subjectivity is wrong.) Of key note here: Philosophy is philosophy because of the use of logic and science. If neither of these two things are used, then it ceases to be philosophy and becomes theology because then you are dealing with statements without proof and without logic and ask people to believe you simply because you said so. (Otherwise called asking people to be stupid.)
2. Read my articles again. I don't engage in limiting those who can participate in society. In fact, I enjoin everyone regardless of race, color, sex or parentage and put them on a level playing field that only changes as a result of the choices in their lives. Ignorance and logical fallacies including contradiction such as BakerStreet’s is simply a choice, one that can be and should be judged. What I do say, is that if an action (intended or otherwise) is anti-life, that it is evil, and all evil must be ruthlessly destroyed, or evil will win and death will be the result. Since this concept of always fighting evil and destroying it is the basis of every belief system, either philosophical, or theological on the entire earth (well the 200+ variations that I have read including the big 5 religions (Yes, I've read the bible (most of the currently accepted variations), Torah, the Koran, the writings of Buddha, and those of the Hindi faith)) then only a hypocrite (or someone from one of the other variations that I haven't read that embraces death) can condemn me for suggesting that we need to fight evil and destroy it. The only thing that BakerStreet doesn't like is that I suggest that his entire belief system is evil, and then give PROOF of my position that is unassailable and non-contradictory. People tend to take it badly when you call their belief system evil because you are essentially saying that they are evil. (which is what I am saying btw.) That's what we call human nature. Or to put it more precisely, Passion rules Reason.
3. ParaTed2k: The concept of God (and his powers of omnipotence) violates the laws of the universe. Thus god can't exist in reality (he might exist in unreality, but as I said, it can't possibly affect reality, see above, and thus is irrelevant. Nor could the energy of the universe be created by unreality because that would also be a contradiction of terms and thus cause the annihilation (at the moment of creation) of the energy and thus reality. This is the circular nature of the illogic of the concept of god that proves that God cannot exist in any meaningful way in reality. (more proof to follow later in a future article, which I have to write very carefully to get all of my thoughts in order without contradiction.)
4. I am not telling anyone anything outside my ability to observe when observation actually matters and is required. The point is that what I have done is present contradictions in the current positions thus proving them wrong. That doesn't require observation, it only requires a contradiction in logic (i.e. if you can find one case where the formula is not true in the space of real numbers, then the formula is wrong, this is the fundamental principle of all mathematics and all logic). Further, my statements about the universe and energy always existing is borne out by observation, and is non-contradictory, whereas the other 200+ variations I have read including the big 5 religions are all contradictory. And of course as Molly pointed out, you don't put out a theory and then state "I'm probably wrong..." You put out your theory, and you defend it until someone shows a contradiction in your theory. Again, no one has done so here.
5. The only assumption that I make is that the universe is a synonym for "reality". That everything inside this universe will work according to the rules of this universe. If that were not the case, then the universe would self-destruct as a result of the paradox (contradiction). Thus this assumption is correct my the nature of the definition. As for stuff that isn't part of "reality", it's irrelevant to reality, and thus humans because it can never affect us without instantly annihilating the universe in the process, and then we still wouldn't give a damn either. If it exists in reality, then it cannot exist in "unreality" (i.e. everything not in reality... you remember this from high school math with real numbers and unreal numbers right?) This is the same principle stated in reverse as the previous statement. So please, prove me wrong. Demonstrate, in any way, shape or form, anything from unreality affecting reality. Show me one case in history with a reproducible experiment that will disprove my statements. You can't. Hell a guy has been offering $1 million for more than 40 years if someone can provide a reproducible experiment to demonstrate this, and in 40 years, no one ever has and hasn't even been able to do that for anything in the past, burning bushes included. If you do, you can be rich, so go for it, please! Until then, shut up and learn, because you're wrong.
6. Stating that no one can ever be right is a contradiction in and of itself. Because if no one can ever be right, then the statement "no one can ever be right" can't be right. And to hedge your bets and say that the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth, is hypocrisy and circular in nature. (AND THUS WRONG)
7. Messybuu: Show me where you have shown any contradiction in anything I have said. I must have missed it between all of the "you're wrong, so there!" I would be happy to address it. I have proven my arguments with logical proofs and examples that support my statements. I have demonstrated the edge cases and the center cases and demonstrated how in every case without exception my position holds. Thus (as you say you should never believe anything until you have proof of it, thus you must be an atheist because if you were religious or believed in God you would be a hypocrite) I have fulfilled my obligation in daring to speak. Fallibility is the result of passion ruling reason. And yes, I might be wrong, hence why I put my ideas out so that others may prove me wrong, and I may grow in the process of finding the non-contradictory path. Instead I get people like Bakerstreet that say "you're wrong, so there!" and provide me with nothing to grow with. This is a trade. For fair trade to happen, both parties must provide equal value. I have obviously made you think, even if it was a knee jerk reaction. However, I have not yet seen anything that requires me to refine my position, or retract it. There is no equal trade, only people attacking me because I dare to say that I'm right until you prove me wrong. But this is the nature of our society now. Everything is for free. We love lotteries and gifts and freebies for this very reason. It's about getting something for nothing and it's sickening. Not the least of which because if you're getting something for nothing, it's your nothing that was provided, but that something was created by someone that worked damn hard to created it and you're essentially stealing it.
8. All of the rest of BakerStreet's arguments all come down to "How dare he make a statement and actually believe it's true! How Arrogant!" Which of course goes to my point about subjectivism and the root of the evil in subjectivism. So if you believe in subjectivism, you'll keep on believing in it and if you do, and are not a hypocrite, you will go back to living in a cave and living to the age of 20 years old with a pit out back for your faeces. I like indoor plumbing, I like cell phones, and I like the rest of the products of science. And guess what? For there to be any science at all, the people doing the science have to dare to stand up and say "I am right. Prove me wrong!"
9. I am right. Prove me wrong. If you are going to belittle me without proof that I'm wrong, then you don't get to speak, because that's called bigotry. It's what racism and women as property, and the holocaust was created on, and I will not participate. But again, you still haven't provided any evidence that I am wrong, other than your assumption that no one can be right, which is wrong because it has a contradiction in it. (see above)
10. I have given proof to every one of my arguments. Further, I have addressed every single point from everyone that has ever said I was wrong with any basis provided, and proven them wrong (if they actually said anything other than "you're wrong! So there!")

That you don’t like my position doesn’t really matter. What matters is that it has no contradiction. Until you have something to contribute that either requires me to be clearer or shows a contradiction that requires me to adjust my position, be quiet, or if you must speak, don’t speak in response to me, do so in the subjectivist forums, or CNN or whatever other liberal (wrong use of the word liberal, but you get the point based on the definition used by western society) brainwashing organization you came from that will validate your opionion and provide nothing other than other lemmings nodding their heads in synchronisity with your own. (and do it on the highway too so that I get all of those great lanes to myself because you've all lined up behind eachother!)

You are 100% correct, and this is one of the reasons why I find Australian Aboriginal spirtuality fascinating, because they do not use linear time, but instead use something that I think is called canonical time. It doesn't make much linguistic sense in English because the whole language revolves around the assumption that linear time is true, but the Aborigines understood it well and didn't have nearly the same hangups about this chicken egg question as we do because their languages revolved around the assumption that the universe had always existed, which is a concept far beyond the possible understandings of most human minds. MIne included.

"If philosophy really does say "Everything is science, and the scientific method is unnecessary"

Actually, science is based on philosophy. It is JG's much cherished rational thought that owes its popularity to Descartes. Ironically, it was flaws in Descartes' work that led me to the conclusion that the Universe had always existed. After all, Descartes argued that there was a God and that it could be proven through rational scientific reasoning.

"Nor could the energy of the universe be created by unreality because that would also be a contradiction of terms and thus cause the annihilation (at the moment of creation) of the energy and thus reality."

Ah yet another philosopher falls victim to the trap of demanding an immaterial world to prove itself using material laws and to adhere to material laws. Of course the immaterial world doesn't work according to material laws. That would make no sense.
So, to clarify, I am a socialist, so JG hates me. I am a subjectivist (so JG thinks I;m evil) but I happen to believe, through my subjective opinion that the universe has always existed (so JG agrees with me) but I also happen to believe that we can't gain a full understanding of this (so JG thinks I'm evil). As always JG, when in doubt, blame the Left. And don't bother really analysing whether such a label as "Left-wing" or "Right-Wing" makes any sense either. That would be a waste of time that might mean you have to confront your own prejudices against the enemy.

"And to hedge your bets and say that the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth, is hypocrisy and circular in nature. "

Oh come on, that was pretty lame first year stuff. There is no universal truth with one exception: that there is no universal truth. Come o, you're above a lamearse argument like that JG.

"That you don’t like my position doesn’t really matter. What matters is that it has no contradiction. "

Again, you have no way to know if a contradiction exists. You may not have found one, but you can't say scientifically that there isn't one. Most of what you know now may be totally invalid in other places, times, or circumstances. Therefore the conclusions you draw may be as well. If so, then your universal "Truth" is simply local belief. You believe, you do not KNOW. Until you can test sufficiently, all you have is what seems to be true here and now.

You have hypotheses, you have beliefs, and none of them are less valid than those held any of the rest of us. But when you say you can definately disprove the existance of God, or that you KNOW things scientifically, you're full of shit, frankly. You keep pretending that I am saying that you are WRONG, diverting the focus of the arguement by imposing the standards I am saying don't exist.. I can't say you are wrong about your BELIEFS any more than you can say you are right. What I take issue with is the fact that you are convinced of the TRUTH of your beliefs to a deranged degree...

In the end, you take your observations and produce a system of beliefs for yourself. Yours are no more reliable or universally testable than anyone else's. Get over yourself. My problem isn't with your beliefs, rather with your ignorant attempt to state the unprovable as Truth, with ample dollups of untestable science and armchair philosophy to back it all up.

You've backed down considerably with your language, started qualifying your arguements, and I think that rejecting your previous arrogance is good. Keep that up and you might really learn what objectivity means, instead of living according to a stringent set of 'a priori' conclusions and philosophical prejudices.

Last time I ever respond to you BakerStreet: (and am doing so only because you actually have some rational point, however incorrect it is)

Again, you have no way to know if a contradiction exists. You may not have found one, but you can't say scientifically that there isn't one. Most of what you know now may be totally invalid in other places, times, or circumstances. Therefore the conclusions you draw may be as well. If so, then your universal "Truth" is simply local belief. You believe, you do not KNOW. Until you can test sufficiently, all you have is what seems to be true here and now.

Actually I do. It's called a philosophical proof. As I said, it is the same as a mathematical one. The reason why I don't go into detail on a philosophical proof and only use the mathematical equivalent (if n=0, n=1 and n=n always work, then the equation is always true, for those of you that are just reading this) is because to understand the philosophical equivalent requires one hell of a lot of knowledge that most people are not likely to have becasue they didn't major in philosophy in university, thus use the mathematical analog is easier to understand. And just like with a mathematical proof, a philosophical proof is true for all cases. If you apply my thesis to a philosophical proof, it survives. The others do not.

What it doesn't demand is that there isn't also another non-contradictory refinement of my statement. But it does state that it is always true and will always be true. (I've tried to explain this to you many times, but you are either incapable or unwilling to listen and ask questions if you don't understand what I've writen so that you can better understand the principle that you obviously are in ignorance of.)

But when you say you can definately disprove the existance of God, or that you KNOW things scientifically, you're full of shit, frankly.

Again, I say prove it. You haven't.

It doesn't make much linguistic sense in English because the whole language revolves around the assumption that linear time is true, but the Aborigines understood it well and didn't have nearly the same hangups about this chicken egg question as we do because their languages revolved around the assumption that the universe had always existed, which is a concept far beyond the possible understandings of most human minds. MIne included.

This makes no sense. This is precisely the reason why we have the term infinity.

"If philosophy really does say "Everything is science, and the scientific method is unnecessary"

Actually, science is based on philosophy. It is JG's much cherished rational thought that owes its popularity to Descartes. Ironically, it was flaws in Descartes' work that led me to the conclusion that the Universe had always existed. After all, Descartes argued that there was a God and that it could be proven through rational scientific reasoning.

Which was just another case of a man working very hard to prove God because he had been brainwashed into believing in God so deeply that he couldn't deal with the truth that there isn't one. This is Aristotle's failing as well. (As Rand points out on page 2 of Introduction to Objectivst Epistemology.)

Ah yet another philosopher falls victim to the trap of demanding an immaterial world to prove itself using material laws and to adhere to material laws. Of course the immaterial world doesn't work according to material laws. That would make no sense.

Read what I wrote again. Understand mathematics and you'll see the contradiction in this. An immaterial world cannot affect a material world by definition and thus is irrelivent even if it did exist, which as being part of the material world, you could never direct or indirectly observe or be affected by the immaterial world. (which is what I said)

So, to clarify, I am a socialist, so JG hates me.

I don't hate you, I hate the evil that you have fallen into believing because of a flaw in your education or logic that has been shown and proven repeatedly since it was first put out for the world's consumption by Kant. and then demonstrated in the real world with the application of this thesis by Stalin and Hitler, Stalin via the writtings of Marx, and Hitler through some perverse belief in socialism that while I understand it, and it's completely supported by the subjectivist position preposed by Kant, it still boggles the mind. I can only understand it on a theoretical level, not on an "application" level.

I am a subjectivist (so JG thinks I;m evil)

See above.

but I happen to believe, through my subjective opinion that the universe has always existed (so JG agrees with me)

Actually I don't, because for me to agree with you, I would have to agree with the premise from which you based your assertion, which obviously I don't.

but I also happen to believe that we can't gain a full understanding of this (so JG thinks I'm evil). As always JG, when in doubt, blame the Left. And don't bother really analysing whether such a label as "Left-wing" or "Right-Wing" makes any sense either. That would be a waste of time that might mean you have to confront your own prejudices against the enemy.

Actually read my posts. I equally detest the right and the left. The right because they think it's ok to take away my freedoms because of their religion, and the left becaus they think that it's ok to take away my freedoms "for the greater good". I just happen to harp on socialists more than right wingers, because they happen to be a greater threat right at this moment, although that could change if W gets his way, and then I'll fight the religious right (JESUSLAND!) just as vigorously. Thus I dismiss the premise of most of our society, both left and right as flawed on the most basic levels. You could most call me a Libritarian, which of course embodies the true meaning of the word "liberal" which has been bastardized by the leftists in North America (most of Europe still uses the word correctly). But I'm not strictly a libertarian either because of contradictions in their belief system as well. Hence the term "objectivist" which with the exception of their position on Gays (see article) embodies my belief system.

"And to hedge your bets and say that the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth, is hypocrisy and circular in nature. "

Oh come on, that was pretty lame first year stuff. There is no universal truth with one exception: that there is no universal truth. Come o, you're above a lamearse argument like that JG.

Actually it isn't. What you have done is taken a universally encompassing statement that applies in all cases and created an artificial division where there isn't one. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to make a statement about the entire universe, you can't then make a statement that limits your previous statement to everything but that statement, it's a contradiction. It's analogous to using the word to define it, or using the bible to prove itself. You can't make a universal statement and then limit it's scope. I forget the term for that kind of illogic, but it still is an illogical argument. The only time that you can limit your scope or definition is when the thing you are trying to define is not part of the scope that you're limiting.

Ayn Rand does an excellent job of completely debunking this Kantian argument in some of her non-fiction. I highly recommend it, because she does a much better job than I am doing. (and no one has ever been able to prove her wrong, and lots more than Bakerstreet have tried...)

"is because to understand the philosophical equivalent requires one hell of a lot of knowledge that most people are not likely to have becasue they didn't major in philosophy in university,"

This is possibly the most arrogant thing ever posted on ju, and that's saying something, because I have a blog on ju. What JG is saying is that he could prove his point but we're all too dumb to understand him so he won't bother coming down to our level. I have half a major in philosophy JG, try me on. Maybe I'll surprise you.

"I just happen to harp on socialists more than right wingers, because they happen to be a greater threat right at this moment,"

You obviously missed the memo about the election results in Australia, USA and the next election in the UK.

"This is precisely the reason why we have the term infinity."

Which 99% of us have a problem coming to terms with, as you have even said yourself. To have a term doesn't mean we can get our heads around it. We might even describe infinity, but it is still beyond our true capabilities to understand it. Plato said something along the lines of his being extremely wise because of his understanding of the limitations of his own knowledge. I agree with him on this.

"An immaterial world cannot affect a material world by definition and thus is irrelivent even if it did exist, which as being part of the material world, you could never direct or indirectly observe or be affected by the immaterial world."

This is an opinion and not a fact. You believe this because of the specific assumptions the theories you subscribe to make and I believe differently because of specific assumptions my theories make. My atheist , Cartesian lecturer ( he subscribes to the theory that Descartes was actually an atheist) actually gave me a high distinction for my arguments that it is actually possible for an immaterial world to affect a material world.

"proven repeatedly since it was first put out for the world's consumption by Kant. "

Actually I don't think much of Kant. I'm more of a Foucauldian.

'Makes life much easier, and far more logical and you don't get that "god I feel small" feeling every time you think about the topic any longer '

This tickles me hugely. No really, it does. All the debate notwithstanding, this is Mr. Galt's literal 'bottom line'. So let's analyse it. There are three basic arguments presented here in support of his position that 'the universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another.' They are:

1. It makes life easier.
Just as it would also make life easier if the fridge was always full when we opened the door, or if our memories were always infallible, or if we each had guardian leprechauns to keep us from possible harm. Hmm.

2. It makes life 'far more logical'.
And this from the man whose blog site is entitled 'Rational thought in an irrational world'. ie. He wants to IMPOSE logic on a world that he admits is irrational!

3. It means 'you don't get that "god I feel small" feeling every time you think about the topic any longer'.
Translation: 'I feel uncomfortable when I consider the alternatives.' Just as many religious people feel uncomfortable with the alternatives to THEIR beliefs. This reminds me of that famous quote about quantum mechanics:
"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it." (Niels Bohr)

And that's Mr. Galt's bottom line? I'm afraid so. The rest is just hot air.

if we each had guardian leprechauns to keep us from possible harm

where do i sign up? (do we also take title to the pot o'gold and a couple boxes of lucky charms?)