Man made god in his own image.

Or saw the AS movie.

Thank you, wiggys

I never accused anyone. I just didn't think it was a bad conversation to be had. I hope it was a mistake as Jan said.

I am the likely product of evolution of a fancy tadpole
and that is an increase in order, IMHO. -- j
.

then, we should invent new words which are clean
and free of the connotation "supernatural." -- j
.

What I described is epistemology. All abstract knowledge is both 'invention' and 'discovery': it is a human formulation of conceptual knowledge true of the world, expressing something not known previously.

Where did "Intelligent design" design come from? All I am saying is that there is an observable tendency for complex things to evolve from simple ones. That is testable and observable. Call it what you want.

What you have described is the difference between invention and discovery.

Ayn Rand did not think in floating abstractions and equivocations. That you do does not mean that "Ayn Rand believed in God".

"Order", i.e., identity, is not from the "workings of an intelligent agency", i.e., consciousness, whether or not one anthropomorphizes "god" images.

Misusing language with words for the supernatural is abuse of rational thought.

Well, "natural increase in order" is a modern chaos/complexity concept that is even more incomplete, and is certainly not proof of the existence of God.

Well, the way I see it, money exists (unlike god) in that whatever is the agreed upon medium of exchange exists in the physical world, whether it be gold, paper currency, checks or bits and bytes. But I suppose money is intangible (and non-existent) in the sense that it hinges on trust...between participants regarding the value set upon it. Believing in value of a fiat currency is akin to believing in spaghetti monsters and such, no doubt. But somehow money as a symbol used for exchange has persisted in human societies, so the efficiencies must outweigh the possible black swan realizations of the arbitrariness of the medium's value.

"From the perspective of a scientist ... [E]xistence of some sort of force that increases this complexity against all concepts of entropy is unavoidable. Some might observe that this force must be the agent of some cosmological intelligence. If so the word "God" is probably as appropriate as any."

"Intelligent design" is not the "perspective" of science.

"2+2=4" is a true statement about the world, made possible by our ability to abstract 'units' and count them. The concepts of unit, counting, 2, 4, and elementary arithmetic, and their relation to entities in reality to do not change by using a non-decimal system to express numbers. The "results" are different when symbol or word usage changes only for those who think in floating abstractions.

The faculty of rationality (not rationalism) evolved as a result of its survival enhancement within an evolutionary branch, not as a continuum through all lower species. There is nothing left of the earlier stages within our branch, other than rare genetic disorders. Evolution is not an argument against the fundamental distinction between man and lower animals.

Good thought!

I am wondering if it is actually an error. Perhaps his comments have been accidentally flagged as hidden.

Jan

I was wondering the same thing. The poster was not rude, at least from the comments I read. If this discussion cannot be had, how do new people learn about Objectivism. Everything can be relevant. I'm confused.

Sorry to disagree. Ayn Rand believed in the supremacy of "MAN" and "his" unlimited potential.

2+2 = 4 is the result of the rules of a particular subset of mathematics. If a different radix is chosen the result will be quite different.