On what do you base this suspicion? Can you explain?
"As for showing an act of creation, ex nihilo, the universe itself is the only example."
If so, then you concede that this supposed event has no precedent. Do you think "creation ex nihilo" really happened? If so, why do you think it actually happened? What evidence do you have for it? How exactly did it happen? Or, do you not know? If you do not know, how can you expect others to accept this claim as knowledge?
Monkey wrote: "Something from nothing."
Yes, that's the claim. I don't buy it. Do you?
Monkey wrote: "The universe is the ultimate in free lunches."
Really? I live in the universe, and I cannot recall one free lunch. Every meal I've ever had, enjoyable or not, has been the result of someone's effort. Besides, my appetite is not big enough to handle the whole universe. But a grilled ham and cheese would be sufficient at the moment! ;) Perhaps I am missing your point? If so, you will have to articulate it with greater clarity.
Monkey wrote: "As miracles go they don't get much bigger."
I see. How does one prove such a claim?
Monkey wrote: "Although you will no doubt have a better explanation for how we all exist, for how it all started and I dare say you will claim to have proof."
I do not claim that existence had a beggining.
This supposition would necessitate a stolen concept.
Monkey wrote: "As Einstein said.
" There are two ways to live your life:- One is as though nothing is a
miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." Do you think
Einstein was right or do you know better? I'm sure you know better CV."
I do not claim that miracles are a reality,
so I do not see the relevance of the question.
"And CV: To paraphrase an argument of yours from the 'certainty debate,
message 2.' Can you define what you mean by 'atheist in affirmative terms?' If 'atheist
can only be defined in negative terms (eg; atheist is that belief which is
not theism,) then obviously the concept theism holds primacy over the
concept atheism, since it is only in contrast to that which is theistical
that one can form the concept atheist to begin with. Otherwise its just a
stolen concept, and without an affirmative definition it is contentless as
Does the concept 'theism' hold conceptual primacy over the concept 'atheism'? I would say yes, the concept 'theism' does hold conceptual primacy over the concept 'atheism'. A concept denoting the absence of god-belief ('atheism') would not be necessary if it were not for the invention of god-belief in the first place. This fact is not problematic for the atheist: just because the concept 'theism' holds conceptual primacy over the concept 'atheist', it does not follow that theism as such has any rational merit. If the popular norm were belief in the tooth fairy, then eventually we would have to form the concept "a-tooth-fairy-ism" in order to distinguish those who do not believe in the tooth fairy. Similarly, if there were no such thing as a god-belief, there would be no need to distinguish the absence thereof from the presence thereof. In my view, this can in the final analysis only underscore the theist's burden of proof, which no theist has met in this forum since I joined it, from what I can tell (or elsewhere).
Monkey wrote: "So which is it? Do you like
the form of argument you presented in certainty message 2, or does
rationality and logic become nonsense when used against
I see no dichotomy between the two, as you seem to. I am satisfied by the inference alluded to above, and I do not think that rationality and logic become nonsense when used against me. I judge, and I am prepared to be judged. You are welcome to use my points in criticism against me, if you think you can. Next?
Monkey wrote: "I think the members of this community should be told."
The members of this community are free to tell us
whether or not our respective positions are clear.
Monkey wrote: "And CV, I have previous to this message only asked you one question, a very simple one and you have chosen to completely ignore it."
My apologies. I have been traveling lately, and I
would not be surprised if I missed some posts. So, it may be haste on your part
to conjecture that I was purposely ignoring your question. It may simply be the
case that I did not see your question.
Monkey wrote: "So I shall repeat it here."
If you want me to answer your question, this is a wise action on your part.
Monkey asked: "Are you, or are you not, an official spokesperson for Ann Rand's Objectivist movement?"
I am not, nor do I claim to be.
Monkey wrote: "Don't be embarrassed,"
Monkey wrote: "...just tell us."
See above. You have your answer.
Monkey wrote: "Are you a disciple or an unquestioning member of Ann Rands flock?"
No, I am not. I do not know of any "flock" which Ayn Rand claims to possess (please note the proper spelling of Rand's first name). Nor do I claim to be, or think of myself as, a "disciple" of anyone's, Rand, or anyone else.
Monkey wrote: "Again the members of this
community deserve to know whether you have an axe to grind vis-a-vis, your
peculiar brand of objectivism or whether you do genuinely
follow the basic principles of rationality and logic?"
Hmmm... Well, the members of the group might just have to do a little homework for themselves. Does this annoy you?