That’s like someone saying that their own extinction from the human race is reconfigured by God into immortality and salvation in Heaven. But the specifics of this God’s existence is actually irrelevant.
As though an understanding of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics is intertwined in an understanding of existence itself intertwined in why there is something and not nothing. But the specifics that finally explain all of this are actually irrelevant.
In my view another exasperating assertion. You propound, posit, postulate that this is an essential truth about existence as though merely believing it is demonstration enough that it is true.
Then when you do bring it down to earth existentially it’s, well, the same thing:
As though you have investigated the deaths of others – death itself – and are now able to demonstrate to the world that there is no way that anyone will achieve immortality as their mind in their body.
You just know this.
First of all, my understanding of objectivism here revolves solely around the assumption that my own argument is no less an existential contraption. I have no capacity to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think as I do here.
And that’s my point. From my own subjective vantage point here and now, an objectivist is someone who argues that there are absolutely true things to be said about the future and that what he or she says about the future is an example of how and why this is true.
And that these truths are so even if one is not able to demonstrate how and why these predictions are in sync with an understanding of existence itself in sync with an understanding of how and why there is an existence rather than no existence at all.
You don’t even have the capacity to demonstrate beyond all doubt that this very exchange is not wholly in sync with the laws of matter such that predictions about the future are in and of themselves embedded in the only possible future.
But even this does not explain why and how it is this something and not another something in something and not nothing at all.
As though this particular understanding is, again, as far as you need go in order to “prove” that God is not factor here or that this particular something was necessary rather than nothing at all.
You just can’t bring yourself to acknowledge the gap between what you think you know about all of this in your head here and now and all that can be known [must be known] in order to definitively resolve all of the “unknown unknowns” that even science still faces.
An example I noted above: washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … story.html
Or this part:
“It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.”
Q.E.D?