What if Judas didn't do it?

[Objectivist]

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.

You're spiking the ball on the 40 yard line.  Try doing some actual metaphysics instead. I will gladly consider your opinions once you start doing the heavy lifting required get from your first-person subjective experience to knowledge of a reality external to yourself. Until then your Randian jesticulations repulse me.

Do you want me to prove that I'm conscious? Your request assumes the very thing you are calling on me to prove. More stolen concepts. If you find my gesticulations repulsive, then just ignore them but what you can't do is refute them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, actually, it would be beneficial to randian objectivism that you could establish that you are thinking in the novel sense that randian objectivism admits as thinking. A rote and performative poisoning of a conceptual well is cultist shit, not a valid logical refutation.

[Silver]

I would love, however, to be presented with one single objective concept that every single person on the planet agrees to as being an absolute.

[The Grand Nudger]

That desire expresses a misunderstanding of objectivity. If every single subjective appraisal agreed, that would still not be, and have never even approached, a truly objective proclamation. Objectivity is not (and cannot be) found in varying levels of subjective assent. Things that are objective are true even when..and especially when, everyone subjectively aggrees to the contrary. If 100 out of 100 people agree to a subjective item of complete communal concordance, it will still not be objectively true.

In fact, valid and meaningful disagreement can only make sense in an objectivist framework. If you say that x is true, and a person is only subjectively objecting, they are not disagreeing that x is true for you, they are only (and can only be) observing that x is not true for them. To state more is to make a commitment to objectivity.

Objectivism...not randian objectivism, just objectivism, is not absolutism. Absolutism explicitly denies objectivism. Absolutism states that things are not some way with respect to their factual states in mere reality, that they are some way absolutely without respect for objective circumstance and difference. Eg. killing is absolutely wrong. Ignore the factual setup, it's always wrong no matter the facts, end of. If we all agreed would this be true..... by sheer force of our agreement? Further, and more importantly.... disagreements as to how things actually are can -only- be cashed in by objectivist thinking. We can only disagree about these matters, genuinely, because we believe that there really are dueling sets of facts. That this is not an illusory artifact of our subjective apprehension.

[Silver]

That's certainly a good way of perpetuating the nonsense. Congrats.

[Silver]

So you're basically confusing objectivity for objection.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or maybe you've read that wrong? Ofc, you can only read that wrong..or right...things can only be wrong or right, in an objectivist framework. I'm actually very hostile to nonsense. Ask our nonsense afficianados how much patience I grant nonsense. Fine with shit I don't agree with, it might be true. Cant stand nonsense, wont miss an opportunity to shit on it...wherever I find it.

[Silver]

You subjectively think you're opposed to nonsense, but can you objectively verify it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I do yeah, and I can, yes.

......? Don't you....can't you?

[Silver]

I don't, and I can't. I introspectively comprehend that anything that derives directly from my mind is purely subjective. For anyone who wants to agree with my subjective opinion is doing so from another subjective position. To erroneously make the objective claim is to be intellectually dishonest on the basis of a social connection that primarily provides an all too human comfort.