Allow Me to Introduce Myself

[The Grand Nudger]

Wel, obviously, I dont agree with you...but ignore that.  I'm asking you to flesh out how....exactly, the assertion of gods violates the primacy of existence


To whit, that means that existence.......exists.

[tackattack]

I was expecting the first post to start with...

"My name is Humpty, pronounced with a Umpty
Yo ladies, oh how I like to hump thee
And all the rappers in the top ten--please allow me to bump thee"

I was a little let down, but welcome.

[Objectivist]

Wel, obviously, I dont agree with you...but ignore that.  I'm asking you to flesh out how....exactly, the assertion of gods violates the primacy of existence


To whit, that means that existence.......exists.

I have fleshed it out and given examples.  I don't know what else I can do if you won't interact with what I gave you.  Are you trying to ask what it means that existence exists?  It means that all the things that exist are real, have real being, as opposed to not existing.  I don't see what's so hard to understand here.  Did you read the essay I linked to?  It does far more than just assert something, it demonstrates, with examples right out of their own mouths.  You keep asking me to flesh it out and when I provide you with a link to a more detailed explanation, and you still want me to flesh it out.  Theists claim that their god as a subject holds metaphysical primacy over its objects.  It can't be any more clear than that.  Matthew 17:20 makes this claim explicitly.  What more do you want?

Do theists claim that they reject the primacy of existence in exactly those words?  No, they don't.  They probably don't even know what the issue of metaphysical primacy is.  But every time they assert the existence of a creator god they do so performatively.  Because the notion of a God that creates everything, maintains it and can alter it by its will, entails metaphysical subjectivism.  You can't say on the one hand this god can alter reality with a thought but that it does not have primacy over its objects.

[vulcanlogician]

Hey, man. Welcome to AF. Nice to meet you.

I think the "primacy of existence" has been adequately stated. Plato belabored the point. Spinoza equated it with "God" (ie said that God is no different than it) so his whole philosophy is an argument against the thesis that the two concepts oppose one another. In fact, when you survey the philosophic community (atheists and theists) who really fails to acknowledge the primacy of existence? No one that I can think of. Therefore, Rand's determinations concerning the primacy of existence fail to say anything that has not been said before.

I don't completely discount Rand. I found some of her thinking about language to be insightful. Her political philosophy is derivative (one may even say bastardized). Thinkers like Aristotle and Nietzsche said what she said, only more profoundly and thoroughly than she said it. And they preceded her. Also, I don't like how she presents a dichotomy between the collective and the individual. Is not a collective comprised of individuals? Her political thinking is far from novel. Emerson and Thoreau speak far more adequately on "individualism" than she does. But I'm up for debating her political ideas. She is insightful sometimes, even here.

God is said to be conscious.  It is said to have emotions, desires, love, plans, intentions, etc.  It is said that it becomes jealous and angry.  If a god is conscious, it must be conscious of something. There is a necessary relationship between its objects and its consciousness.  What is that relationship according to theists?  Which has primacy according to theists, the subject or the objects?  According to theists, the objects of God's consciousness conform to its conscious intentions.   Things are said to happen according to God's plan.  Therefore, the notion of gods, at least the ones of the major religions, affirm the primacy of consciousness.

Even if we are conscious of something, doesn't mean we understand it.

And- "according to the theists"? What theists? Different theists make different claims about God. You can't pigeonhole all theists as having similar views about God's consciousness. But I bet you are leveling your argument against mainstream Christianity. In this instance, I agree with you. For the most part. But even within mainstream Christianity, there are differing views about God's being and consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not at all amigo, only asking why proposing a god would violate the notion that existence...exists.  I think that folks might be interested in why you think so.