In a message dated May 6, 1998, HOWARD8984 writes:

Any discussion of ‘universe’ necessarily entails a discussion of EXISTENCE. The UNIVERSE is defined as: The sum total of existence; any thing or entity that exists belongs to the universe. Existence is an absolute: existence exists. There is no disputing existence. Existence is eternal: nothing can ‘destroy’ or ‘create’ existence. Therefore, the assertion that ‘the universe is contingent’ as we have seen argued time and time again with blatant disregard of the absolute nature of existence and the Law of Identity, is nonsense. Matter can change form, such as water can be boiled into steam, but it STILL EXISTS. Nothing can wipe out existence. Existence does not ‘pop’ into existence by magic or ‘divine decree’. It simply exists. There is no disputing the fact that existence exists. To argue against the fact of existence would necessarily presuppose existence.

If one would like to argue that the universe had a ‘beginning’ at some point in the distant past, then one is necessarily arguing that at one time the universe did not exist. One is then arguing that at one time existence did not exist. Is there any evidence that at one time existence did not exist???? Evidence presupposes existence. Did a ‘god’ create existence? The assertion ‘god’ presupposes existence (the religionist himself argues that ‘god exists’ - this presupposes existence).

However, you are free to go out and ‘look for’ ‘evidence’ that at one time the universe did NOT exist. Good luck!

It’s called Reason (as opposed to faith and mysticism). Again, reason begins with the axiom EXISTENCE EXISTS, whether implicitly or explicitly. Reason stipulates that concepts by nature have definite meaning. Therefore, man invented the concept ‘universe’ which identifies the sum total of all existence. Concepts are the tools of cognition (unlike ‘faith’ or emotions). Concepts are man’s means of identifying reality. For those who are GENUINELY interested in sense-perception and concept-formation - which Howard’s question necessarily involves, I refer the reader to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand, and to Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I would also refer the reader to a good book on LOGIC, the method of reason, which is the art of non-contradictory identification.

Again, as Airwaveboy had explained to you very well in the past, reason is a means of identifying and integrating our perceptions. As I have declared numerous times: EXISTENCE EXISTS. All existence exists INDEPENDENT of consciousness. Man can only be conscious of existence IF he chooses to. You can decide to think, or you can decide NOT to think. That is your choice. When you do make the decision to think, assuming someday you do, you will need to guide your mind by a standard which conforms to reality - i.e., to the realm of existence. No, wishing will not make things appear or disappear; I am not the one who advocates a subjective view of existence, which states that existence is dependent on consciousness. Since existence is by definition UNIVERSAL (as the universe is defined as the sum total of all existence), then only that standard which guides man in non-contradictory identification of existence is proper for him. That standard is REASON.

If you wish to claim that sense-perception is inaccurate or misleading, you are free to pour acids into your eyes, deafen your ears and remove your taste bud and olfactory nerves any time to demonstrate the power of your ‘faith’. Failing that, I do not accept the implication that sense experience and observation are unreliable. Man’s sense are exquisitely accurate. One look at the inventions and innovations that man has produced will proudly serve as evidence to this assertion. However, as I said, you are free to remove them from your ‘vehicle’ if you so desire.

No. Existence, identity and nature do NOT depend on one’s experience of it. Reality is OBJECTIVE, which means: it exists INDEPENDENT of CONSCIOUSNESS. Whether someone is around to perceive/witness/experience something or not, if it exists, it exists. Existence is NOT contingent. A simple way to remember the fundamental principle is: EXISTENCE IS IDENTITY; CONSCIOUSNESS IS IDENTIFICATION. In other words, existence exists, and consciousness is aware of it. It involves a lot more than this, but primarily by corollary. Again, study the sources to which I have referred you. Or, test it out on reality.

The notion of an ‘infinite regress’ would be necessitated if someone were to advance as an inviolate absolute the statement: "Everything that exists has a cause." This is one of the premises to classical cosmological apologetics. The consequence to such a statement is that no ‘ultimate presupposition’ will ever satisfy this allegedly inviolate absolute principle. If one posits that a ‘god’ ‘caused’ the universe, then, to be consistent with the principle, one could not be satisfied with this, as he has posited something that exists, which thus needs another agent of causality for the ‘god’ posited to explain the existence of the first and so on ad nauseum, according to this principle. This is only one of the failings of the cosmological arguments. Basically, the principle involved here is: intellectual integrity. If one posits a general principle that he insists applies to all things absolutely without exception, one cannot posit an exception as the answer to the ‘riddle’, so to say. The cosmological argument, however, as I have demonstrated several times (and others have too), posits the notion ‘god’ - which is an exception to an allegedly inviolate absolute, as an explanation thereof. You are free, however, to believe otherwise.

Statistics? I don’t think Dr. Peikoff was giving out statistics per se, he was obviously making a general observation here. In defense of Dr. Peikoff, I would only say that I doubt he would consider every Christian who writes a book in defense of his religion as an independent, viable and thoroughgoing philosopher in the context of being taken seriously. I would imagine - and I’m speaking from my own judgment - that he would consider partaking in a debate similar to this as I would consider it: pure entertainment, if it weren’t for the fact that religious philosophy is so lethal to man.

From the context of his writings, I think Peikoff is referring to explicitly religious philosophers, no matter which religion they represent or advocate. By this statement I take it that he is not referring to philosophers who tend to secularize fundamental religious doctrines in fresh guises (see below).

The so-called Christian ‘philosophers’ are for the most part carbon copies of each other (they’re a dime a dozen), as they are simply rehashing tired and outworn arguments in new garb. Nothing new and substantial comes from this group of so-called ‘philosophers’, it’s the same old garbage: The so-called Christian ‘philosophers’ are for the most part carbon copies of each other (they’re a dime a dozen), as they are simply rehashing tired and outworn arguments in new garb. Nothing new and substantial comes from this group of so-called ‘philosophers’, it’s the same old garbage: subjectivism, mysticism, altruism and collectivism. These philosophical doctrines are easy to identify when dressed in religious clothing.

It’s the so-called secularization of these doctrines, having originated in religion, which gives their religious essence a new and outward veneer. However these secular variants of religious philosophy are relatively more recent in history as a result of modern philosophical schools and trends which reject objective reality, reason and man’s basic right to exist for his own sake, and retreat to the subjectivism of religion.

As for your list of Christian sophists and wordsmiths, I’m not interested, so you can keep your lists to yourself. Given the prevalence of alternative philosophical approaches available to man, I would imagine that for every ‘Christian philosopher’ you could name, there are probably 20 or more philosophers who are not Christian.

By the way, is this the only part of Peikoff’s statement that you could ‘attack’?

When I speak of ‘faith’, I borrow Ayn Rand’s definition of faith: Faith is the acceptance of allegations without evidence and against one’s own capacity to reason. Dr. Peikoff’s definition isolates the same principle: "‘Faith’ designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof" -- L. Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, pg. 54.

Notice also, as Ayn Rand pointed out in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It (pg. 66):

"Faith and force are corollaries: every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny."

(Incidentally, the title of the chapter that this quote is taken from is called "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World".)

Rand is correct in her observation. It is not by causeless chance that every faith claim is backed up by force, or the threat of force. Hence, the Christian says: "Believe, or go to hell" or "Obey, or go to hell" etc. This is exactly what Christian doctrine does. This is exactly why I reject it.

Good evening all,

Tindrbox

_________________________________