Thank you again, Justin, for your contribution. Below I will make several points that should be noted by the group:

In a message dated February 26, 1998, VvJUSTINvV writes:

Re: The "origin" of the universe:

There are numerous theories about the so-called 'origin' of the universe. The Creation Myth and the 'Big Bang Hypothesis' are just two that I have heard. I have also heard of others, such as the universe being laid as an egg from a giant tortoise, or that the universe is the remains of some other dimension, vis-à-vis Mr. Spock and his Vulcan mind-melt technique.

I seriously question the validity - and the value - of any such assertions, and for the following reason: If one is to assert that the universe has an 'origin' - i.e., a beginning to its existence, then one would necessarily have to argue that at one time the universe did NOT exist. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If you are going to argue that the universe 'somehow' appeared into existence, either through the divine hand of God or through some reptilian bowel movement, you would also have to demonstrate that before that event occurred the universe was not 'here'.

Has anyone accomplished this task? Has anyone found any kind of 'evidence' that at one time the universe did not exist?

I define the term 'universe' as simply: the sum of all existents. That is: the universe consists of ALL things that exist. If something exists, it belongs to the universe. There is no such thing as existence outside the universe. That rules out the 'existence' of a 'creator of the universe' notion of the religionist, for a creator of the universe would have to exist independently of the universe (i.e., independent of existence) in order to fashion the universe (i.e., existence).

There is no such thing as existence outside existence. Such assertions are logical absurdities.

If the universe at one time consisted of all material existence of the universe compacted into a kernel the size of a pea, then existence still exists, as the universe exists (only it's very tiny), and it can hardly be argued that such a state is the beginning of existence (i.e., of the universe), it would merely represent a stage of the universe, of existence.

I do find this last theory difficult to accept, however there are allegedly credible scientists who argue for this theory, but I caution one on the use of the term 'beginning' to describe it for the reasons I mention above.

The primary principle one should keep in mind, is: EXISTENCE EXISTS. This is a tautology, albeit a necessary one, given the neglect most philosophies share in respect to objective reality. There is no instance of existence originating from non-existence; the source of existence is NOT the absence of existence.

Therefore, the only RATIONAL place to begin one's quest for knowledge is NOT to posit the supernatural, but to begin with the fact of EXISTENCE.

Asserting the supernatural in an attempt to 'explain' existence (i.e., the universe) explains nothing, and only serves to end one's quest prematurely, and without logical resolution. The assertion of the supernatural cannot lead to knowledge in any case.

The kind of person who asserts the supernatural is the religionist. All religions contain in the metaphysical branch of their individual philosophies a doctrine known as subjectivism. "Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver - i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims." [Ayn Rand, "Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?" The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965, 7.] The religionist calls his ability to effect such alteration by mere wishing prayer.

Subjectivism is the doctrine which holds that man - an entity of specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature - can somehow live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality - i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe (i.e., of existence).

When discussing his creation myth, the religionist will typically reply: "One cannot ask for an explanation of God. He is an inherently necessary being. After all, one must start somewhere." Such a person does NOT contest the need of an irreducible starting point, so long as it is a form of consciousness; what the religionist finds unsatisfactory is the idea that existence is the starting point.

Driven by the primacy of consciousness, a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world, which we KNOW to exist; instead, he insists on jumping beyond the world to the unknowable (see my e-mail dated Feb. 24 titled "Re: To a few commentators" where I discuss in brief the notion of the 'unknowable' in contrast to the 'unknown').

The assertion of the 'unknowable' explains nothing.

I agree: Actions DO get us somewhere. With any action, there is a consequence. It is through action that man can either achieve his values, surrender them, or destroy them. The man who is prepared to deal with reality on its terms will recognize this, and establish his principles of action on the fact that his actions will bring a result.

But what kind of philosophy rejects action as a means of achieving values? Religion does: "For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works [action], lest any man boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). (I imagine someone will accuse me of taking this statement out of context, right?)

"Lest any man boast"? Is that what the biblical writers were really afraid of, that men would boast?

I trow not.

I believe that the real intent of the biblical compilers in putting this verse (and several others like it) into their texts was far more heinous: They wanted to extinguish man's pride in himself. By PRIDE, I mean: One's recognition of the fact he is his OWN highest value. Pride is a very SELFISH virtue, and the priestly men who wrote the Bible knew this, and despised men who valued themselves. Therefore, they riddled their 'scriptures' with hundreds of exhortations and injunctions that men rid themselves of positive self-appraisals, which, when healthy and founded on rationality and achievement, results in pride.

The priests knew that men of self-esteem would not have any need of their religious doctrines. It stands to reason that if one values himself, he will also value his mind, and examine the claims that he encounters. This habit would not befit the would-be follower in a church. Thus, one merely scans the Book of Proverbs, and he is barraged with prohibitions and warnings against pride.

Some of the more explicit examples include:

Proud men cannot be ruled. Humble men hunger and thirst after a ruler. Those who wish to rule others recognize this. Is it no surprise that a group of priestly elites would pen such warnings against pride, and praises of humility? Who stands to gain from the humble, but those who seek to profit from their deference?

When man no longer subscribed to the biblical repudiation of PRIDE, he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

As an American, I declare my independence DAILY.

Tindrbox

_________________________________