basimpson22

Please clarify People who know a little like to come to conclusions that tend to be vitiated over time by more data. Data is hard to accumulate. Scientists do this a lot speculating about the cosmos. Since existence has always existed, it's a great conceit to imagine it going cold without at least then firing up again. Whatever the origin of the perceived and identified universe, there had to have been something before if there was a beginning to it as such. The existence of non-existence is the existence of nothing and a contradiction. --Brant Well, yes, the existence of non-existence is contradictory and the bible doesn't try to disprove that. It acknowledges eternity in both directions. But this is a very profound thought to me. I keep thinking about it and all i can come to is that Existence is greater than God since without it there couldn't be a God. ....blows my mind. Existence is what we should be rejoicing about, not God. And specifically, our own piece of existence.

Please clarify

Point taken but I'm just interested in a logical argument I could present to the minister with minimum insult to his faith. I just want to appeal to his logic, not attack his faith.

Thanks for your very scientific response....

Just yesterday I had a meeting with a campuse minister. We discussed the origin of the universe, the afterlife, the evidence of a designer. I would love love love to convert him to objectivism. Or atleast to rack his mind. Minister's arguments for origin of the Universe: 1) the minister brought up a theory from thermodynamics that all bodies are cooling off. He asked, well if everything naturally cools off, where does the heat come from? Implying that God must be the source 2)Newton's 1st law and expansion of the universe: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. The minister said that the universe, instead of oscillating in size, has been proven to be expanding exponentially or at a growing rate and if Newton's 1st Law holds true the universe must be having a force acting on it in order for it to grow at an increasing rate, implying that God must have been the one who initiated this constant force. Otherwise, in his theory, the universe could only be growing at a constant rate or declining rate. A declining rate would suggest a finite universe since if its declining it must be converging to a limit. for the afterlife: his arguments for the afterlife did not have any scientfic basis. He posed a typical argument and that is that its better to live you're life as a Christian in case there is an afterlife since if you don't you're risking an eternity of anguish. I said that the probability of an afterlife is highly subjective. And then he said it was 100% but started talking about how if you decide to live as a christian you will choose the right path 100% of the time. I know! Illogical right?! Completely changed the subject. (Maybe that'll give you an idea of what I'm dealing with. I don't know if that was meant as an intential diversion to what I was talking about or what? evidence of a designer: he said that there is a moral code among men that is universal. I really don't have an argument to that. I believe that as an objectivist one can observe that in fact there seems to be a core of morals common among all men. He said that this couldn't have happened by chance, and that this "code" must exist by design. He also talked about the complexity of the human eye and how that couldn't have been the sum of random events. He also said that, since when something is designed it has a purpose, that we (humans) must have a purpose that serves our creator. Ok, that's the gist of it. I'm hoping to get an abundance of feedback.

I was told you specialized in the use of ad hominems. I don't see that though. I see well formed, well grounded opinions and ideals. You condemn cynicism and uphold idealism. How could anyone argue against that? Cynicism is a cancerous concept. What progress has ever been made in the name of cynicism. Mere sustenance is the most a cynic could hope for and impotence a close second. Whereas the idealist has in him boundless potential.

Haha, i'm loving your sense of humor ;) I actually get referred to as "Booby" rather frequently. People just being silly... I hope I don't come across this Shayne character anytime soon. My area of study? Well, I'm kind of insulting myself by naming it, given the topic of discussion. I'm an accounting student.

Lol, I am a student. Thank you for your replies. I had completely forgotten about Midas. I do remember reading about him though. To merlin, I should've known that real estate brokers don't qualify as financial intermediaries. My fault. And thanks for the explanation and sources. I will definitely use them. I remember Francisco criticizing investors who throw their money at various ventures with little or no research into the workings of the company or the morality of the President. So, even if you're just a laymen who's trying to sell or buy a house you can use the same principle as Midas and that is to do a little research into the people you're doing business with. Hey! you called me Booby! Booby = Bobby lol And to merlin I did say produce nothing but it wasn't a double negative since it wasn't preceded by a contraction. Well, check that out. I can give lessons in grammar just as well as the next person.

I was looking for a forum to discuss this topic and I believe I've come across a good one. Before reading please be aware that I do not profess to be an expert on Objectivism or Randian philosophy. I do, however, profess to be a fan, all be it a newby. Anyways, what I wanted to discuss is what rand's views may have been on financial intermediaries. I'm about halfway through Atlas Shrugged and so far she hasn't had much to say about bankers and brokers. She glorifies those in industry and in R&D but doesn't, in my opinion, have a definitive stance on financial intermediaries. From what I have gathered from the book, Rand doesn't esteem people in these professions very highly. These people aren't in the type of business where fair trades are made, for one. A real estate broker buys a piece of land at auction and turns around and sells it for double. Secondly, what do these people produce. In my opinion they produce nothing. I believe they only inflate prices. I like to stick with the real-estate broker example: So the broker turns around and sells the property for twice of what its worth and he also includes a fee and commission in this price. This drastically inflates the value of the property. Well, that's probably as far as this simpleton should try to take this. I look forward to learning about what more knowledgeabe people have to say about this.