From: chieh@dvs.com (Baldwyn Chieh)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Onus of Proof (Re. God exists)
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:58:12 GMT
Organization: Digital Video Systems
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


When a statement is made that cannot be proved or validated to be true or false,
the onus of proof falls on the positive assertion of that statement.

To borrow Leonard Piekoff's example; let us state that there is a convention
of gremlins discussing Elvis on the moon at this moment.  I have no way of
proving this statement, and yet I have no way of disproving it.  However, I
cannot just assume it is true.  Why?  Because to disprove it is impossible.
If the existence of something is logically possible but unproven, it cannot
be shown to not exist.  To do so would require proof of the existence of a
non-entity.  I would have to prove that the existence of a non-gremlin.  That
is why, if one asserts the POSITIVE, the onus of proof falls on that person.
Because, the NEGATIVE cannot be proven, unless the statement is logically
incorrect.

At any rate, some attributes associated with God are logically impossible.  God
is portrayed as a consciousness that existed before existence.  But what does
that mean?  The consciousness has to have a content; it has to be conscious
of SOMETHING.  But before existence, there is nothing.  Therefore, any form
of consciousness is conscious of nothing, or aware of nothing.  In essence,
the consciousness does not exist.  Some may argue that God is conscious of
Himself.  Well, something has to be the object before that consciousness can
be aware.  Existence precedes consciousness.

God is omniscient and omnipresent.  There must be a limit to anything.  To be
everywhere, includes to be nowhere.  The concept of infinity is a mathematical
tool, it does not exist in reality.  To do so, would violate the law of
identity.  An entity must act according to it's nature at any given point in
time.  At a given point in time, an entity must be limited.  It's like saying
the dimensions of the universe are infinite.  But at a given point in time,
they aren't.  The dimensions are fixed.  They are some value, whether measurable
by humans or not.  They CANNOT be more, because they are what they are.

Now, a word or two on Stephen Grossman's post. 


>Everything exists, literally everything. A rock, an emotion, electrons, 
>reason, people, the past, the future, God, and the non-existence of God. It all 
>exists.

This statement violates logic.  You say that the existence of God is true,
but so is the non-exstence of God.  A=not A?

You go on to talk about *context*.  I believe that truth is truth in any
context.  It's like a baby who defines his parents as things that move.  That's
true.  But it soon becomes unapplicable, because he finds out that other things
move as well.  His context is expanding, but his previous knowledge is not
untrue, it's too general.

I believe what you are really saying is look at the person's axioms.  What
does make up their metaphysics.  Is there a logical error made that is creating
a contradiction.

>Objectivist can say that if imagination establishes truth, then its true that 
>god exists.

Yes, they can say that.  But why bother?  Why even grant for a second that a
false axiom may hold.  Any logic built on a false axiom will be bound to
incorrect.  Do NOT argue under a false context.  It's pointless.

>        *******Always keep meta basics in mind.***************

I agree.  If there is a philosophical disagreement, than it is because there
has been an error made in logic, or perhaps a false axiom assumed.  That is
the level you should argue on, or try to correct.  Perhaps a person has
rigorously applied logic, but had a false axiom that led anything that was
based upon that to be wrong.  It's like tearing down a wall until you hit
solid foundation.



Baldwyn Chieh