What if Judas didn't do it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Theism, not christianity. Christianity is, as you've commented, explicit on this matter. On that note, I find it interesting that a great many neo pagans hold objectivist views but would probably not indicate as much for the historic or political implications as they see them. Their gods are, generally, not the same type of god as the christian god. More like products of reality than the manufacturer of reality. Manifestations of natural facts and relationships.

At any rate, the simplest way for a theist to overcome this objection is to affirm the primacy of existence. There are facts, there is a reality per se, and gods..while much more capable or competent than ourselves...are subordinate to it/them. Theism is neutral on the subject of objectivism and subjectivism, the primacy of existence or of consciousness - as it's a claim on the nature of gods, not reality per se. That the divine is personal and intervening, which could be the case under either viewpoint considered.

[Objectivist]

This, right here, is the explicit invocation of the primacy of consciousness fundamental to judeo christian monotheism and the stolen concept all rolled into one.  

Under the primacy of consciousness....there is no existence itself, called reality per se - there is only whatever happens to be floating around in a megamind.  For example, reality doesn't dictate whether things fall or float.  The megamind dictates this, and it could be whatever said megamind dictates.  The term reality is meaningless in this formulation, but so compelling that people who would assert as much feel the need to try a quick smash and grab, despite the fact that the very existence of any reality per se is a rejection of the primacy of consciousness, and powerfully argues -for- objectivism.

This, amusingly, does not apply to all or even most gods.  Yet another self inflicted wound from the god of the philosophers™.  It's a ridiculously easy objection for theism to overcome, but christianity is wedded to stepping on that rake for no reason other than it's own insistence.  I say this because the assertion gets them nowhere, supports nothing, and is completely uneccesary to any other thing in the christian orbit of belief.

What are you going on about? Certainly nothing related to what Bel or I actually said. There is no primacy of consciousness or primacy of existence. It is a false dicotomy. There only the primacy of God.

I've heard this objection plenty of times.  The primacy of God means the primacy of consciousness since God is supposed to be the consciousness on which all things depend. You are just playing semantics games.  It is not a false dichotomy since what is at issue is the relationship between a subject and its object.  The object and subject are distinct from each other and their relationship is contextually fixed.  There can be no consciousness without existence.  What are you conscious of?  I'm not conscious of anything, I'm just conscious.   Therefore consciousness is dependent on existence and not the other way around.  

Give up.  It's not possible to escape this issue.  No matter what you say in answer to it, you affirm the primacy of consciousness unless you also claim that your answer is true because you want it to be.  Is your "primacy of God" true because you want it to be or is it true independent of anyone's thoughts or beliefs to the contrary?  

As soon as you say "it is" the primacy of existence is implicit.  Otherwise, all one would have to do is answer that it "might be true for you but it isn't for me" and what argument could be made to overcome this answer.  

To say that "God is" is to say that existence exists independent of consciousness and there also exists a consciousness on which existence depends.

[The Grand Nudger]

-to add to the above, there are remnants of this kind of thinking in magic book and just about every myth. Where gods have problems, or they can be tricked or imprisoned or fail. That there is some place or some thing or some means by which they can be rendered effectively powerless even with respect to their presumed magical abilities. Same with monsters. Silver for werewolves, garlic for vampires, iron for the god of old magic book. Hell, god flat out couldn't get it up in Nazareth, in new magic book. Must have been bad ley lines or somesuch? He ends up fucking off while whining about how his own family and neighbors didn't give him no respect, NO RESPECT!

[Paleophyte]

Judas is proverbially a bad guy of the NT, so what would have happened if he didn't betray Jesus? Would Jesus' mission be a (bigger) success or would it be a failure?

Judas is necessary to the narrative because otherwise it reads "And then Roman soldiers nabbed him and tacked him up." Clearly that was a major problem for the early Roman church, so they concocted some convenient excuses like Judas and the trial at the Sanhedrin to insulate themselves from what their own troops and politicians had done. Or what they had done according to the early Christian mythos. They make no sense whatsoever once you think about them but that's never been the strong point of the faithful. Blaming the Jews was easy and that little blood libel has cost a lot of lives down through the ages.

[brewer]

conspiracies upon conspiracies = great fiction

[Objectivist]

Theism, not christianity.  Christianity is, as you've commented, explicit on this matter.  On that note, I find it interesting that a great many neo pagans hold objectivist views but would probably not indicate as much for the historic or political implications as they see them.  Their gods are, generally, not the same type of god as the christian god.  More like products of reality than the manufacturer of reality.  Manifestations of natural facts and relationships.  

At any rate, the simplest way for a theist to overcome this objection is to affirm the primacy of existence.  There are facts, there is a reality per se, and gods..while much more capable or competent than ourselves...are subordinate to it/them.  Theism is neutral on the subject of objectivism and subjectivism, the primacy of existence or of consciousness - as it's a claim on the nature of gods, not reality per se.  That the divine is personal and intervening, which could be the case under either viewpoint considered.

OK, I agree with you.  Not all proposed gods violate the POE.  I don't really think that it's important or necessary to refute every god claimed to exist nor can I.  The big three represent the vast majority of the religions in the world and they are the ones that directly affect me and my family.  The big three certainly do affirm the POC and this is a fatal flaw that they must deal with if they want others to believe.  I have been bringing this up for many years and not one person has even been aware that this is an issue which only means they have a very superficial understanding of the fundamental principles of their religion.  

Wasn't trying to derail the thread but any time I see a Christian, jew, or Muslim making use of my philosophy's premises I like to point it out, especially because of the rash of sh*& that they give me for not believing in their fantasy.  

I find it really interesting that there is starting to be a Christian Objectivist movement.  It only goes to show that these people have not examined their own worldview or Objectivism very carefully.   The two are incompatible at the most fundamental level.  Any resemblance is superficial at best.  I think it's a good thing because if they do study Objectivism they will very likely be led to reject Christianity.

[Objectivist]

Yeah, I do not see how his objection has anything to do with basic Christian doctrine. I suppose a wooden interpretation of "the Word" in John 1:1 could be seen as a form of idealism. Since in Scholastic theology, i.e. Roman Catholic dogma, the existence of God is identical to His essence, the poverty of Randian ideology is exposed by a third option, not considered by binary thinkers. Perhaps, God's existence and His awareness of His existence may be considered distinct yet remain inalienable.

I also think that God's consciousness, for the Scholastics, wouldn't fall easily into the idealist/realist dichotomy. As with God's "love," or God's "desires," the words don't mean what they mean when applied to humans. 

As I understand it, for finite temporal creatures, consciousness is always consciousness of something. This requires two things: the being who is conscious and the object of that consciousness. 

But since God includes everything, there can't be an object of consciousness separate from him. God's consciousness is just existence itself. 

Though I realize there is a lot of diversity in how different Christians address this. I wonder if Berkeley, for example, would be vulnerable to Rand's criticism. (Which is not to say I agree with it, necessarily.)

No Belaqua, you don't get to say that God is this or God does that because one of the many implications of the primacy of existence is that Christianity can not be true so you can't come along and assume the Christian god exists and that its consciousness is different from "finite, temporal creatures" as if there were any other kinds (to exist is to be finite).  No, that's the end of Christianity.  It's over, at least if you accept logic and reality.  One can claim anything one wants about imaginary beings but the primacy of existence principle is what separates fact from fantasy, the real from the imaginary, and true from false.  It's the ultimate razor, cutting fraudulent worldviews off at the root.  Christianity begins by declaring metaphysical subjectivism.  Therefore it is false.  There, I just proved that Christianity is false.  If you accept logic then you must accept this and move on.  Not that I think you or any other Christian will.  Christianity has been exposed and you should really warn your fellow Christians not to steal concepts like true, objective, rational, logical, etc. that have in their genetic root the POE.  

If God existed and it was true that there "can't be an object of consciousness separate from him" then God is not conscious.  Such a notion would commit the fallacy of pure self-reference.  It would be a consciousness conscious only of its own objectless awareness, and that's a direct contradiction.  Consciousness can only ever be a secondary object.  That is that we can observe our own conscious awareness but only after we are aware of some eternal object.  

Actually, there is a way for Christians to overcome this devastating razor.  Just say that your belief isn't rational but you believe it anyway because you want to.  That would be consistent.

[Belacqua]

If God existed and it was true that there "can't be an object of consciousness separate from him" then God is not conscious.

Right, many theologians agree with you. God is not conscious, in the way that people are conscious. It is a wholly different thing. In fact it would be better not to use the word "conscious" of God.

I understand that a lot of Christians think of God as a big guy in the sky. Their image of God is the kind of thing you describe, and I also reject this view. Also the Neoplatonists (Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, Iamblichus) reject this view. Also the Christian theologians who took Neoplatonism into Christianity (Pseudo-Dionysius, Anselm, Augustine, Cusanus, etc.) reject this view. 

Earlier you said of Christians "No wonder they are afraid of their kids going to college or surfing the web." This is true of a certain subset of Christians, but certainly not all. Christians in fact believe a variety of different things; what you say is true of some but not others. 

Not that I think you or any other Christian will.  Christianity has been exposed and you should really warn your fellow Christians not to steal concepts like true, objective, rational, logical, etc. that have in their genetic root the POE.  

I'm not a Christian.

[Silver]

The greatest theistic fumble is in defining god without the necessary evidence to even confirm existence.

[Objectivist]

I'm not a Christian.

I apologize, Belaqua, I thought you were.  I stand corrected.