Like the song, imagine there is no heaven and no hell. Now imagine none of us ever even heard of these places. Would we tend to act more or less rational? Could each of us live our own lives better? Would we be better off overall? Or, would we need to invent something else to tell us how to live our own lives?

Nice way of saying I am cheating. Which I am not. For example If I could remove all the space (the nothing) between all the matter in body what would the result be? A incredibly dense point that would have the same mass as you. But you as a person would cease to exist. Your existence depends on the nothing between the matter that makes the structure that is you. Do that to all the matter, energy and dark energy in the universe and what is the result. Something like the initial conditions at beginning of the universe. Which had no existence.

I am not saying that nothing exists, I am saying existence cannot exist without nothing.

"Do not say that you're afraid to trust your mind because you know so little. Are you safer in surrendering to mystics and discarding the little that you know?" J.G.

You're conflating terms in order to remain correct. There is no such thing as the existent "nothing." "Nothing" does not exist. The (idea) of an opposite of "something" needs to exist for conceptual thinking.

True enough, I'm not here to convince you of anything, as there is no need too. I see that there is more to the universe than simple equations made by people, you do not. I see a cause and effect that is not limited to humanities poor mental capabilities, you do not. I care very little of books that have no frame of reference to anything today or in the past except for a few moments. I know what I'm talking about is much more than a 'fancy' nor is it about my life. Looking at your claims to 'mystic' playbooks I wonder which one you play by? If you were suddenly thrown into a society that technically was at the bronze age and you went on proclaiming that all matter was made by a mysterious invisible object called an 'atom' which no one could ever see or feel or determine to be exist. How do you convince someone of something when you have no way of showing them at that time? To be honest up until I was 30 years ago, I thought the same way as you, then I learned. Have good one yourself.

A is always A and in no way have I posted anything to the contrary.

So A is A only when it suits you? Okay. Now I know what I am dealing with. Have a nice day.

Look, there's a single point I would like to get across to you instead of opening my registry of 5 years old questions regarding deities; you are in the realm of beliefs, not in the realm of reality.

There's over 3000 recorded instances of "Deities" in human histories Many of them have been told to have performed miracles so grotesque it would boggle the mind. Other rode in battle with humans as recorded in the illiad. This being said, no single objective proof of any them existed out of the folk tales dictating their exploits.

Now, you are telling me, without any objective claim, that there's a supreme being out there making things spins left instead of right. Well, if you can't prove it, there's no reason for me to not shove this idea with the 3000 other ones without even giving it an eyelash.

You have the right to come here with a page of the mystic's playbook and claim it is true. If it tickles your fancy, I will not stop you. It's your life. Please take note that I have warned you.

Have a good life.

I am afraid that the nature of existence requires it. I understand you're referring to metaphysics but without the anti-concept there is no existence. Existence is made up of matter,energy,space and time. Without space there is no existence. Now if you want to argue that space is not nothing, go ahead.

There is a point that is getting missed about religion and its use of mythology, and oddly even a point Rand herself seem to miss even if she was "somewhere in the shadows of her memory" aware of it. Consider her own language in writing Howard Roarke's speech defending the primacy of humanity against all other external forces:

"That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures - because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer - because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage."

The lessons of mythology are not "magical tea pot in Jupiter" fantasies. They are the life lessons that speak to the human psyche that Rand clearly understood.

The Prometheus she speaks of was alternatively seen as either a hero of humanity and the bringer of light, flame and knowledge, or a villain who brought the curse of the gods upon humanity. Those who saw Prometheus as a hero understood the importance of being cause over ones circumstance and those who viewed him a villain were those who agreed to be the effect of their circumstances.

Prometheus is the Greek version of Adam and Pandora is often linked with Prometheus as Eve is with Adam. The mystics, those priest class dictators are the ones who used the Garden of Eden mythology and turned it into a punishment tale, but an objective mind, unconcerned with the science of mythology and only concerned with its message can readily discern the purpose of Satan entering Eden in the form of a serpent as its meaning was to convey that no evil could enter Eden in its natural form. Eden was a place without evil and with only good. It was the serpent who informed Adam and Eve that by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (not simply the tree of knowledge as Howard Roarke presents it) would know what God knows about good and evil.

Adam and Eve's action in eating that fruit was not reckless with the effect of original sin, but rather heroic in that they were given a choice, to stay in Eden for eternity and remain forever ignorant or eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and know what God knows. They chose the latter and this was their answer to the call to adventure.

Nothing is an anti-concept. There is no such thing as nothing. I am referring to metaphysics, not mathematics.

A is most assuredly A, and this an Aristotlean concept, and only supports my contention that mythology is mythology not "fairy tales" and that science is science not the fairy tales your spinning.

Spouting off language you've memorized doesn't make you smarter. You have to actually understand the language you are speaking to do that.

Okay.

So, are you ready to accept the existence of my magic teapot? If you are ready to claim that you can ignore some minors concepts of Objectivism like A is A when it applies to your personal beliefs, you must be ready to accept mine promptly.

Gravity is actually a known force not a theory. Of the four known forces gravity is the only one that has not been confirmed by experiment. Asking people to take note of erroneous will only attract attention to the erroneous assertions. Entrenching oneself in their own ignorance is common among men, and was something Ayn Rand hoped to overcome by developing Objectivism.

The way gravity works is a theory the fact that things fall down is real and observable at least when on a planet or large enough body. yes the idea microorganisms are cause of many diseases has support behind it, also that many more microorganisms in and about our body make us healthy as well. The break down would be is if all microorganisms cause diseases.

Petulance is no more a part of Objectivism than is ignorance. Instead of admitting you cannot effectively explain a "singularity" or better yet effectively explaining it you deflect with banal petulance. The -ism of Objectivism is what you seem to adhere to and treat it as if it is dogma rather than a method by which to better inform yourself. Treating Objectivism as dogma is every bit as religious as those you seem to revile.

Never said that, but if we follow a definition of omniscience and omnipotent, there is no way I could possibly know, besides it's hard for me to know what my wife is always thinking let alone a God. I never claimed God was totally unknowable any more than its unknowable for 'dark matter' to have an effect on matter around it without seeing it. Please lets keep civility in this, no need to be mocking or derogatory. For this discussion I do have a background in physics and genetics, while it makes me not an expert, it gives me enough incite to know that the universe is big enough for God and man's scientific pursuits.

Please take note that gravity is a theory. So is germ theory for diseases. Are you accepting those as theories too? Or maybe you want some special pleading for your pet cause?

"Objectivism is about eradicating ignorance not spreading it."

Okay, There's a magic, invisible teapot in orbit around Jupiter. Prove me wrong. If you can't, as you say, you must accept the existence of the said teapot as a real possibility.

We need the discussion open and willing to listen to each other, so please lets continue being respectful and avoid name calling. That's all tools of the left, and i believe as objectivists we are much better than that!

"If I had an answer..."

So you got no idea what you are talking about the trademark, right? It is wrong to assume that you got no answers whatsoever regarding your unknowable-knowed entity?

Ah, those pesky scientists who tries to explain the world through the "conditioning" of scientific inquiry and objective reality! If they looked harder they might have found God having a poker game with Bigfoot and that guy who said that you can have the butter and the price of it aboard a UFO orbiting Jupiter...

I have to respectively disagree, the big-bang is still a theory, with some backing to be sure, but is still an argument can be made against it as many scientist do to even this day. This is where people have problems with science, we start using absolutes when none belong, there are always exceptions which means there are no absolutes in science that is.

Your lack of scientific knowledge is showing. Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Even understanding the process of hypothesis to theory to law is all to often misunderstood and people often ask questions such as "when does a theory become a law" but this is like asking when does an apple tree become a single apple, or asking how does a novel become a single word. It is foolish to claim to be objective and then declare a theory has been "proven". There is no objectivity to this what so ever.

Further, what has been discovered is radiation with a spectrum that agrees with the Big Bang Theory which confirms the the universe began as an explosion. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in explaining this because it is really irrelevant to what I said. The confirmation through discovery of radiation with a spectrum in agreement with the Big Bang Theory comes nowhere close to explaining what the hell a "singularity" is. Your imprudent use of language regarding science suggests you most likely cannot explain a "singularity" any better than astrophysicist can.

Sadly, what you do, and hardly objectively so, is to compare mythology to science. Both seek to provide answers, but their methods are radically different. Mythology is not "fairytale", and in referring to it as such you have now revealed not only a woeful ignorance of science but of mythology.

Objectivism is about eradicating ignorance not spreading it.

If I had an answer that would automatically either limit God, as his thought processes would be able to be understood by a limited being or that would make me like him omniscient, which I'm not. I can only say that without any evidence of a so called 'trademark' he chooses not to be like us. With that said, how could we tell the difference between a naturally occurring event and one that is made by God? ie. if God made it rain one day, how would that be different from a natural rainfall?

Chances are as scientists we are conditioned to see it only one way, and never to look at the other option.

Nothing is key to existence. Just as zero is critical to mathematics, the place holder. So saying existence of nothing is impossible is meaningless. Also, there is a problem with the statement "Nothing can exist outside of existence" existence is mostly nothing, so nothing cannot exist outside of existence.

That is the problem with zero, and nothing. They are part of existence. So using them for proofs of the existence or non existence of a prime mover is self referencing. Also, do we have a clear definition for the prime mover? No.

What do we know? A = A, existence exists. We (humans, information gathering structures) exist. So whatever cosmology you come up with cannot preclude existence and our existence. Work from there. If you value the answer.