Yes. Existence exists. Life is a product of a mind.
Also: Order doesn't automatically come out of chaos. It takes thought and effort to organize existence into workable order...otherwise my house would dust itself. (I wish!)

Fair enough.... The relationship is with the statement 'existence exists' combined with cause and effect. The second leads to ask 'why' as many times as we can, therefore once the first statement is the answer to the question why, we abandoned the second, there is cause and effect. I see a contradiction here.... I'd chech my premises. But you're right, most of my reply to you refers to other general comments, sorry :)

Followers aren't necessarily consistent in following others. A consistent follower of Ayn Rand would be an atheist because her metaphysics does not accommodate theism well at all. But I can see someone liking her ethics or politics, and perhaps even her epistemology, who compartmentalizes their religious views and keeps them separate.

I contend that you can accept reality as it is, and
enjoy a lifelong wonder at the glorious harmonic
complexity -- studying it like an art student or an
astronomer -- and call it God's handiwork, without
implying mysticism.

I contend that you can understand a whole lot
about right and wrong from moralists who have
gone before, from the experience of others, just
like a scientist builds on the knowledge left by
others. . and the Bible contains a whole lot of
wisdom, and Jesus showed ways to interact
with others in a positive way.

I contend that interaction with others, in general,
can be aided by fluency in religion. . it's kinda
like the significance of "please" and "thank you"
which moms teach us -- social lubrication -- when
handled wisely.

so, on the surface I am a believer, and down
inside, I am like a child looking up at the stars,
awestruck, in perpetual wonder. -- j

p.s. and I consider myself an objectivist,
or at least a student.

me, too, Robbie, even though I was only 18. -- j

I discovered long ago that I preferred a simple, uncomplicated path. With that in mind:

1. I don't call myself, other than Christian, anything in particular. But I do call myself a Christian because I am a follower of Christ's teachings. Following that simple logic, I guess I'd have to call myself an Objectivist.
2. There's a first time for everything.
3. Google "common sense philosophy" when you get a chance.

Thanks for the best post on this entire thread, by far.

You wrote, "The split she had with the Libertarian movement originators was over the need for a proper ethics as the basis of one's political theory. She did and they didn't."

I was glad to see that because I had always wondered why she disliked libertarians. But now that you've enlightened me as to the reason, I find that I don't fully understand it.

I have read quite a bit of her non-fiction and I believe that you must in order to understand Objectivism. I don't claim to be an authority on the philosophy and I didn't even understand everything that she said, but I will study it more until I do.

"Understanding existence" is the purported goal of all philosophy. How one comes to that understanding is where they differ. See my response to Wiggys, above, for the Objectivist means of coming to that understanding.

I have to ask two questions. First, do you call yourself an Objectivist or do you just follow Rand? Those are different things.

Second, what does common sense have to do with the question posed in this thread? I have never seen anyone, and certainly not Rand, say that Objectivism is based on "common sense." Common sense it too broad a term on which to base a philosophy.

You speak of "the origins of existence." As Rand put it in Galt's Speech and Branden expounded on in the Basic Principles lectures, the basis of Objectivism are two axiomatic concepts: existence and consciousness. These two, and only these two, are at the base of Objectivist thought. Why? Because they cannot be denied! They are concepts and thus must be derived from reality, must be discovered; and they are axioms, which must be implicitly accepted even by those who deny them.

Consider the fuller statements of these axiomatic concepts, viz., existence exists, and consciousness is conscious. They are, to be sure, tautological---and they must be.

Can you imagine a geometric proof WITHOUT axioms? It is impossible! Can you imagine a consciousness which is unaware of anything? If it is unaware of anything, then it is not consciousness. To attempt to prove one is not conscious (or that there is no such thing), is to seek to prove a contradiction. To deny that existence exists engenders the self-same dilemma: Just WHO is doing the denying and by what means did they become AWARE that they do not exist?

Because the foundation of Objectivism is to be found in these axiomatic concepts, and because the logic of existence and consciousness leads inexorably to single conclusions, the philosophy of Objectivism is cohesive and internally consistent.

The implications of these conclusions have specific ramifications down the philosophical road in the branches of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and, yes, even psychology (because psychology is the study of behavior AND CONSCIOUSNESS).

The question of atheism, in my view, is metaphysical (Can such a being exist? By what means?), epistemological (How can one know? How can one unequivocally and intelligently communicate such knowledge?), and psychological.

While one can be an admirer of Rand, and accept certain conclusions of her philosophy, one cannot be an Objectivist while embracing any supernatural, irrational, or mystical notions.

As Branden put it inthe conclusion of his lecture, "The Concept of God", "The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man's sole means of understanding and grasping reality. It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth but you can't have both. Don't deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make---but know that a choice IS involved here."

Even Buddhism!

"The basis of Objectivism is Man's nature as a being possessing volitional consciousness"

That is not the complete basis of Objectivism, and that is why your second sentence does not hold up.

That's right, it's the fact that they're progressives that makes them consider Rand and Objectivism evil, not that they're atheists.

Even if you buy the idea that life can come from inanimate matter and animals can morph into other animals, the THEORY of evolution does not make logical sense. And, even if it did, you are still left with the question of what (who?) set the whole thing in motion.

The core of Objectivism is the Primacy of Reason.

It is entirely possible that the Universe was created. There is nothing in Science or Reason that rules out that possibility.

It is entirely possible that whatever may have created the Universe continues to take an interest in it.

There is nothing in Science or Reason that rules out that possibility.

If new experiential evidence was discovered that proved the Existence of God - Objectivism would not collapse. The Existence of God would then simply be Known to Science.

I am an Objectivist - I believe in the primacy of Reason. And I am also a Diest.

I don't claim to KNOW God exists the way I KNOW argon gas exists. But I have found sufficient reason to believe.

I haven't shared those reasons because they would mean nothing to you. They are my own personal experience.

I am not trying to convince you to be a Deist. I am merely refuting the assertion that one must be irrational to believe.

That is simply not true.

I am an Independent Objectivist and a Deist. I find no conflict so long as your decision to believe is based in reason.

If you saw the Loch Ness Monster cross the road, it would be irrational NOT to believe. Even if you couldn't prove it to anyone else.

If some people actually do see ghosts (not something I personally believe) it's not even a question of belief for them - it is something they KNOW to be true.

A proper skeptic is properly skeptical, but just because a thing cannot be proven doesn't mean it cannot be true.

Still - this argument only holds for those who have direct personal experience. You should never believe another's extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof.

Conversely, one can say God exists, and it is called Existence.

Since Objectivism is an integrated philosophy you can't just pick and choose unless you want to qualify as an eclectic. Faith doesn't belong in a world of reason.

Marx wrote that because to dismiss God and set himself up as the "God" or sole source of solutions.

His philosophies have led to nothing but misery for all who live under it. Not a good source to validate the "validity: or religion or belief in God. Kinda like saying Oh..Lookie. the earth is flat, then expecting everyone to come to you on the nature of the universe. Wrong on the initial premise and wrong on all subsequent statements.

Did you not read my comments?

I think it's possible, too. Ayn Rand said, "Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego..." She also thought Christianity contained a contradiction; click to read more: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus...

Funny! +1