Free Will via Objectivists

Hal
post Yesterday, 12:17 PM

Statements which seem self-evident often turn out to be wrong. It was once self-evident that life couldnt emerge from non-life. It was self-evident that the statement "event A occured before event B" couldnt literally be both true and false for different people. It was self-evident that a moving object required a constant input of force to keep it going. It was self-evident that objects stayed the same length no matter how fast they were moving relative to the observer. It was self-evident that time travel into the future was impossible. It was self-evident that the entirity of our visual fields are in colour. It was self-evident that all physical objects had to have mass. It was self-evident that space had to be Euclidean. It was self-evident that space and time were infinitely divisible. Yet all of these things are wrong.

I think the free-will theory is true. But its not impossible that it will turn out to be incorrect, just like everything mentioned above. You are of course correct that predicting human behavior from a reductionist point of view is far beyond anything people are able to do just now. But assuming that mental states and brain states are correlated, and that particles in the brain obey the same deterministic physical laws as particles anywhere else in the universe, there doesnt seem to be a place for genuine free will.
---[[Well, I suppose a proper definition of time-travel is appropriate, since its a pretty vague concept. But I simply meant the time dilation allowed by special relativity; that (eg) if someone gets into a spaceship and flies away from earth at a fast enough speed, before returning, then he may have aged only 5 years while 100 years have passed on earth. For all intents and purposes, he has travelled 95 years into the future.
This sort of thing has been demonstrated experimentally, albeit on a far smaller scale (eg clocks 'losing' a few nanoseconds when flown round earth in high speed planes).--]]]


===========
AisA Michael Smith
Yes, one can say precisely that with respect to the axioms of Objectivism. Any notion that something exists besides existence is false and should be rejected immediately. Any notion that a thing can be what it is and not be what it is, at the same time and in the same respect, is likewise false and should be rejected immediately. Any notion that consciousness is an awareness of something other than that which exists is likewise false and should be rejected immediately. Do you disagree?

I think the problem lies in the definition of "self-evident". Objectivism's definition would be: that which can be grasped by direct perception. Many of the things you listed as "self-evident" would not qualify under that definition.

By the way, I would like to hear what makes you think time travel is a possibility.=====
---------------------
JMeganSnow
I didn't say it is true because it is self-evident, I said it is axiomatic because it is self-evident; since the fact is directly perceivable though introspection, i.e. you can observe your consciousness in the process of making choices, it is not deduced or induced through reason; there is nothing prior to it that you observe and then abstract in order to derive that you have reason. It's as obvious as a thunderstorm.

In order to be accepted as true it still needs to be validated, self-evidency is not sufficent demonstration for that, as demonstrated by the numerous people who still refuse to believe it.

Free will can never be contradicted by later findings in neuroscience, because the existence of the scientific method, hence neuroscience, depends on an epistemology of reason, and reason depends on volition. Without a volitional consciousness reason would be neither necessary nor possible.

So, a neuroscientist concluding that volition was only an illusion would, in effect, be declaring that he had used volition to discover that it didn't exist in the first place.

Oh, and I'm "travelling" through time as we speak, otherwise it should be rather difficult for me to type this message, much less post it. --------------------my blog: http://www.literatrix.blogspot.com

---[[Yes there is. If I were to say that by observing reality and taking measurements I was able to scientifically conclude that nothing actually exists you'd declare I was insane. What precisely was I observing and measuring? Observing and measuring both assume that something exists that can be observed and measured!

Ditto with volition. Reason, which is the process of integrating and processing the evidence of your senses by means of forming abstractions, that is to say concepts and propositions, does not operate automatically. It is a volitional process. The proof is dramatically obvious: people can be wrong. If determinism was correct the same inputs would always unerringly produce the same outputs, like a computer. The scientific method requires the use of reason, it requires you to exercise your volition. It would not matter whether a neuroscientist could "explain" how he "deterministically" arrived at his conclusions: the fact would be that he had exercised his volition in the process of reasoning and that his conclusions were false. Period end of story.

A typical cop-out of this is to claim that people are too complex for anyone to ever have precisely the same inputs/outputs, so that explains all the variation. But what is the result of a statement of this kind? That neuroscience is inherently bogus because it is not possible to understand the subject of its study!

The truth is that you can know everything there is to know about the brain, how it works, etc, and people will still have free will; they will not be fully and unerringly predictable. You can predict how certain people will act IF they are VOLITIONALLY rational and objective because their motivations will conform with reality. But you will never be able to predict irrational people. Try it. It's amazingly frustrating.

For instance, psychoanalysts for years have been claiming to "explain" that your actions were the result of some sort of conflict between the mystic entitites known as your id, ego, and superego and that you had no control whatsoever. The fact that they could "explain" the origins of your actions had no bearing on the truth of their assertions.

If you are like I was when confronting this problem, oh, about two years ago (jeez! Was it only that long?!) your problem is not that you feel volition is true but are forced to accept determinism on the bulk of the evidence, the problem is that you are afraid that volition is true and are clinging to determinsm so that you won't have to assert your certainty and, most of all, your responsibility in the face of many people who disagree with you. I sincerely doubt that you know any more about neuroscience than I do, but if you are going to claim that you cannot observe volition in action when you sit at your desk and think "Okay, now I'm going to pick up the mouse", and then do it, and then "and now I'm not going to pick up the mouse" and then do that, then no one can help you.

As for "illusory" volition, which has been discussed before, what, exactly, would be the nature of an "illusory" volition that acted in all respects exactly like volition? It would be volition, that's what. As the less-philosophical say, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" (and possesses all the other attributes of a duck) then on what basis can you claim that it's an illusory duck? It's a duck! In this context the term "illusory" is rendered completely meaningless: its purpose is not to convey information but to cause you to doubt your own certainty.--]]]

===================

It would not matter whether a neuroscientist could "explain" how he "deterministically" arrived at his conclusions: the fact would be that he had exercised his volition in the process of reasoning and that his conclusions were false. Period end of story.


No. You just stick to your free-will story. If he can explain the principles of how this actually works and can predict outcomes again and again, then he has a strong case. I am the first one to admit that this is not possible right now. My problem is that I find it impossible that something else but determinism or pure chance can exist. Especially the claim that only humans have volition is very weird. Animals have brains, too. They live in the same universe according to the same physical laws. So humans must somehow have a magic part in their brain that creates volition. Otherwise they, just as animals, are determined. For the same reason.
=========================

You will remain uncomfortable for as long as you continue to try to fit reality to theory. When you decide to fit theory to reality, you will realize that all you know about physics is not all there is to know about physics, and that somehow volition is possible, as it must be since you observe it every conscious moment of your life.

mrocktor


It's this somehow that screws it up for me. If I just stick to the somehow even if all I know about physics tells me exactly the opposite, I'm no better than the guy talking to god in his spare time. All he has is a somehow and no argument can reach him. I need a reason, you know. And I don't have one. In addition to that I doubt that I will find it.

If physics is wrong, where is that and why? / Felix

======================
RationalEgoistSG
QUOTE
"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy--therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain (or of trying to pass his thinking off as mine--an attempt which fails, for obvious reasons). I chose the name 'Objectivism' at a time when my philosophy was beginning to be known and some people were starting to call themselves 'Randists.' I am much too conceited to allow such a use of my name. . . .

"What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with--and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own.”


Those of us who take ideas seriously ask that you please not violate the law of identity by calling yourself an Objectivist when you are clearly not.

==================
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ess05.html

Who is an Objectivist?
by Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. .../...
I might mention, in conclusion, that the fact that I wrote my first articles on psychology in an Objectivist publication, and the material was offered to the world as an aspect of "Objectivism" made it possible, years later, when I had become persona non grata, for Leonard Peikoff and his followers to talk about "The Objectivist Theory of Self-Esteem" and to use my theory of social metaphysics as if these ideas had originated in the mind of Ayn Rand. The truth is, there is no Objectivist theory of self-esteem. In her whole life, Ayn Rand wrote maybe no more than 7 or 8 sentences on the subject. I have written volumes. But that is a story for another day.
==============
bbrown
Hmm, I wonder what could possibly be the motive for doing this? Why on earth would feminists, anarchists, moral relativists, etc. want to turn "Objectivism" into a non-objective term, so to speak?
I'd say that it's definitely a package deal. What are they trying to gain? The prestige of a coherent philosophy while undercutting it with their bastardizations. That's the best case, I think. At worst, they're actively trying to subvert it.

===============
Hello, I am the former webmaster of The Aggiew Review. I am just dropping by to see what's new ...and I think I found out.

I am truly impressed -- No, not with how much more superior the web site is compared to when I did it (because that was a joke), but I am truely impressed with the chief editor's passive compliance for allowing the "objective" views of the current webmaster to be integrated with the religious views the Aggie Review traditionally supports for the mere sake of filling up emptiness with seemingly parallel content; and for that matter, that the webmaster, who supports a "strict" view of objectivism, would even choose to do this, knowing perfectly well that to support objectivism in its purest form would mean that he must reject all forms of religion as being irrational mysticism! In doing so you are mixing oil and water and the summation of this web site represents the worldview of nothing at all.

You cannot without injustice to yourself and to the people you wish to influence assert any definition of what is a true objectivist without the qualification that by your own deed you do not adhere to it, else neither one of the so called doctrines you support -- either by deliberate intention or by mere association -- condone your actions.

Either Or. Don't play games to uphold your quest in furthering the status of your social and intellectual profile. If you're serious about what you believe then you will drop one or the other, otherwise you are a counterfeit to yourself, to this journal, to your readers and to the opposing doctrines you represent. If A is A, and no contradictions exist, then I suggest checking your premises, I guarantee that you will find errors in your thinking and the representation of it on this web site.
David Leo Veksler
My Blog | Cafepress
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.-- Ayn Rand
=====================

you would realize that God was judging the earth and was in total control of those he wanted to save and there is nothing on this earth that can override his precepts.

Funny how this omniscient and omnipotent God has to jump through such hoops to get things done. Reminds me of the movies where the bad guy doesn't shoot the good guy, but instead ties him to a railroad track or puts him into a cage with a swarn of killer bees, of some such. Entertaining yarn! It is scary to think that there are those who take this seriously and that these people live among us, rather than in some undiscovered jungle!

Seeking morality? Take the door labeled "Practical"

"I'm an Atheist, but I disagree with the Objectivist idea that "God" is contradictory because he exists, by definition, outside of reality. I've never heard a theist say they believe that God exists outside of reality

Theist's expand reality to include a reality in which a god can exist in. He's not here on Earth, he's not in space somewhere. He's in Heaven. where is this Heaven? It's somewhere else. Where? Just somewhere else. ===================

Well, I cannot know what is meant by "God", as there is no proof that God exists.
Something has to be perceived, real, before it can be defined.
I guess I just answered my own question. The existence of "God" would matter to me, depending on the nature of that existence.

--------------------
ann r kay
The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason. -Terry Goodkind

Teachers who offer you the ultimate answers do not possess the ultimate answers, for if they did, they would know that the ultimate answers cannot be given, they can only be received. -Tom Robbins
===============
Nxixcxk
Chains are a more honest form of slavery than the specious liberty enjoyed by our countryment.--Edward Cline, Sparrowhawk, book 1

A boy adopts a hero for two reason: because a hero capivates his soul and serves as a projection of his innermost self; and because a hero seems to have solved many problems that may worry a boy, or at least demonstrates the capacity to solve them.--Edward Cline, Sparrowhawk, book 2

One should be gentle with the ignorant, for they are the chosen of God. -Mark Twain
==============
God: A perfect being conceived as the creator of the universe, and worshipped in monotheistic religions.

Such a God cannot exist because the universe, as such, cannot be created in the physical realm. The universe is not an existent to be created. It is a name for the collection of all existents--like society is a name for a collection of people. To say that God created the universe is to say that he created every single thing that exists. Did he create your toothbrush?

Theists need to pinpoint exactly what God created. If a serious theist takes up this challenge, he might begin by putting forward the belief that God created the Earth or the Sun or Man. And in these cases he would need to provide some evidence before any rational thinker could take his claim half-way seriously. And if his God truly loves him and answers his prayers, I'm sure locating some evidence won't be too difficult.
=================
It is inherent in the notion that god created reality. If he created it, he must exist outside or independent of reality.
-------------
We already argued this exact subject with him in excrutiating detail about two weeks ago in the Atheist thread. april 6 2005
-------------------
DavidOdden
The specific arguments to be brought to bear on the matter depends on what you are talking about. For example, there is the matter of his mailing address. Under one version of god, he is totally outside the universe. Given the normal use of "universe", that refers to "all that exists" from which we can learn that god is outside of "what exists", thus he does not exist. Naturally, the clever way to weasel out of this is to claim that he lives in an alternative dimension other than the standard 4 that we inhabit, and when they say god created the universe, they mean that he created the 4 dimensions that we have access to but not the one that he occupies. That one, apparently, must have been created by god's auntie or someone other than god. Either that, or we have to assume that god's dimension somehow didn't have to be created, but our dimensions did (this is on the assumption that we somehow need the existence of god to explain how the universe, i.e. our dimensions, got created).

There are various standard contradiction problems, for instance that his omnipotence is limited so that he is incapable of creating a non-prime number so huge that he cannot factor it, or a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, or a hole so small that he cannot pass through it. Also by assumption, he cannot withdraw from any part of the universe (given the axiom of omnipresence) -- I on the other hand can withdraw from Sunday school and do something better with my time, so I have powers that are beyond god.

He is completely anomalous, physically, in terms of anything known to exist. He has no specific properties (for example, mass, energy, extent, spin, charge, velocity). It's hard to think of anything that is known to exist, and which is so anomalous. Perhaps one of those god-believing types would like to make some specific proposals to put some meat on the bones of god, but I'm pretty sure that they reject the conclusion that he has zero mass and they reject the conclusion that he has an infinite mass and they reject the idea that he has some specific intermediate mass. We know that massless entities exist (for example, photons), but they are not totally propertyless.

I think if somebody were to say that god weight 2 million pounds, has a chitinous exoskeleton and 90 arms, and lives a trillion miles from earth on the planet Zahadun, the matter would be simpler -- it would be a simple go-look issue. As I understand it, all of the evasions about god's properties is exactly because they want to be sure nobody can determine whether he exists.
===========
Felipe
You can point to the law of identity and say an entity without identity is a contradiction. A proof along those lines is definitive, and it wouldn't be proving a negative, just showing what can (and thus what cannot) exist.

Punch line: the identity of a postulated "entity" consisting of "infinite" qualities and/or "infinite" qualities does not, and cannot, qualify as a valid identity. Thus the postulated entity belonging to this kind of identity does not, and cannot, exist.

Now, do I need to read Aquinas to learn the Church's postulated identity of "God?" I think not. God, as postulated in most manifestations of mysticism, possesses an identity characterized by infinite qualities and/or infinite quantities.

Now, how in God's name (pun intended) could one use reason to arrive at the conclusion that such an entity exists?
--------------------
////////////////////////
Well, typically theists will offer some kind of definition of God. It is the definition that you can attack as being contrary to the facts of reality. You are not actually disproving a nonexistent God. You are pointing to the arbitrary and contradictory nature of their definition as such.

If, for example, someone says that God is the creator of the universe, then you have a definition there to work with, and you can logically attack the definition, exposing its disconnect from reality--its fantasy.

If someone says that God is a tree, then God is a tree. Woo hoo! You have a new name for a tree. But if God is a supernatural tree, then you have another fantastic definition that can be attacked as contrary to the facts.

If you can't even get a proper definition out of someone, then they have no ideas that you should be afraid of. Ignore them.

--------------------
Visit my Web site: MisterSwig.com.
===============
Post #30

"Objectivism correctly holds that Existence is primary, not Consciousness.

The concept of God is part of the contrary view that Consciousness is primary. In particular, it is God's Consciousness which is held to be primary.

Thus God should be defined as a Mind which makes existence exist by imagining it or by being aware of it. In other words, God creates things by thinking of them. If He ceased to think of them, then they would no longer exist.

So reality is like a kind of game of solitaire that God is playing with Himself

The definition of God which I gave in my last message was partly inspired by descriptions of the Hindu god Brahma.

Since "Existence exists" is an axiom. It is redundant to suppose that Brahma has created Existence. So Occam's razor suggests that the we dispense with the idea of Brahma.

Furthermore, Brahma is a psychological projection of the mental state of a new-born child before he becomes aware that objects continue to exist even when he cannot see them.

I was hoping that one of you could find a way to disprove the existence of Brahma.

I do not think that the usual arguments against God based on attacking His omnipotence or omniscience will work.

Brahma is omnipotent in the sense that He does everything which is done and no force can stop Him from doing what He wants to do with Existence. However, He cannot or would not do anything to limit His own power and He does not create logical contradictions. So his omnipotence is limited in that sense.

Also He is omniscient with respect to Existence (in the present and the past). But there may be things which he does not know about Himself and about what He will do with Existence in the future. So the arguments that omniscience is self-contradictory do not apply.

If we define a miracle as an exception to the usual rules which Brahma applies to the game of Existence, then I think that He would not make miracles because that would be cheating.

Brahma is certainly good because Existence is good. But he is not omnibenevolent. He can and does create things which are evil and which He knows will be evil.
-------------------
TomL
"Existence exists" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means existence has always existed and always will. It was never created; there has never been a time of non-existence, from which it must have been created. Ever. The universe is eternal, in both directions of time.

Also, Occam's Razor is false. To understand why, get Induction in Physics and Philosophy (I was there in both '02 and '03 ) or wait for the upcoming book.

One cannot "disprove" the existence of anything. You can only prove a positive, not a negative. You cannot "prove" that 1+1 != 3, you can only "validate" it. Please do equivocate "proof" with "validation", they are not the same thing.

Much as you'd like to to think that there is such a thing as "limited omnipotence" and "limited omniscience", you're only kidding yourself. What exactly does that mean? In any sense you care to define it, I have both of those properties. Any limits placed on "omnipotence" means that in some way, one is impotent. Any limits placed on "omniscience" mean that in some way, one is ignorant, which are precisely the conditions that "omnipotence" and "omniscience" are devised to reject. It is a sad contradiction you are trying to assert as true, and you can't get away with it here.
==============
iris :
You said "The universe is eternal, in both directions of time.".

Brahma is not supposed to have created the Universe at one time only. Rather He is creating (or re-creating) it continuously, because it could not exist for an instant without Him.

It seems plausible to me that the Universe began with the Big Bang about 14,000,000,000 years ago. Why is that not possible?

You said "Also, Occam's Razor is false.".

Yes. It is merely a heuristic, not a universal truth. That is why I said "suggests".

The assumption that "1 + 1 = 3" leads to a contradiction which destroys the mathematical system containing it. If that is not proof that it is absurd, then what is absurdity?

What do you consider to be the difference between proof and validation?

"omni" means "all", not "infinite to the point of contradiction".

Brahma (if He existed) has all power, because He does everything that is done.

Brahma has all knowledge (of the present and past of Existence) because they only occurred in His mind.
===================
TomL
You misunderstand the concept "creation". One does not create something "continuously". The act of creating has a definite beginning and ending, and the product, i.e. the "creation" does not exist until the process of creation is completed. A bridge is not a bridge until you've finished building it. A book is not a book until the last page is written. And existence is not existence until it.. exists.

Even if there was a "big bang" event some large number of years ago, that doesn't mean that whatever existed at that time didn't exist. It means it existed in some other form. Nothingness cannot explode into somethingness.

Regardless of the absurdity of the equation "1+1=3", it still does not constitute a proof that "1+1 != 3". (!= meaning "does not equal). A proof requires that the conclusion be reduced through means of differentiation/integration to the perceptual level. You cannot reduce something which is false -- when you try, you wind up with something that cannot be perceived. It's like trying to prove that there is not purple-stripped radishes somewhere in Andromeda reading debating Platonic ethics. You simply can't see everything in Andromeda, so you can't prove they aren't there.

On the other hand, we can validate it by means of what we do know. We know that radishes do not debate, for one. And we know that Plato never went to Andromeda. These do not constitute proof, because for that you need direct perception.

There is no such supposed thing as "infinite to the point of contradiction" as apart from "all". Yes, "omni" means "all", which means that "omnipotence" means "all-powerful" which means "one who can do anything whatsoever". Omniscience means "all knowing" which means "one who knows everything". There is no other purpose for the terms. Anything less is not "omni".
==============
iris
Felipe:
Yes, there may have been something before the Big Bang, perhaps including other such explosions. In fact, I think that that is the most likely possibility.

But one should understand that the only law of physics which forbids creating something from nothing is conservation of energy.

Under present circumstances, the new matter would have positive energy as compared with the zero energy of the pre-existing void. This process is forbidden because it increases the total energy, violating the conservation law.

But it may be that the Universe as a whole has zero energy, since the positive energy of the matter and various force-fields could be canceled out by the one kind of energy which can be negative which is gravitational potential energy.

If that is the case, then the Universe could have appeared from nothing without violating conservation of energy or any other law of physics.
============
Hal
The question of whether God "could" exist isnt so much a metaphysical question as it is a linguistic question concerning our concept of God - it is asking whether the standard "God constructions" are actually coherent. The idea of unicorns makes sense in a way that the idea of square circles doesnt, even though neither exists. In a sense, we are asking whether God is more like a unicorn, or a square circle. This will depend entirely on which idea of God you're using - the Greek and Norse gods certainly make sense, whereas the standard Christian one doesnt.
========
Layache
He's not talking about two opposite sides of the universe, but a single event that creates positive and negative energy at the same time. It is known that an electron can be "created" if a positron also pops into existence at the same time. They are perfect opposites and balance each other out: COE is not violated. In most cases the two particles will attract each other and mutually destroy each other right after they appear, but in the case of this happening on the event horizon of a black hole; one of the particles may get sucked in while the other is free to go about its merry way.
================
iris: .../...
I hate to disagree with someone who is taking my side, but real (not virtual) positrons have positive energy just like real electrons. So creating a real electron-positron pair requires some energy input.

The Hawking radiation from a black hole is supposed to be caused by the creation of a pair of particles where the real particle escapes carrying positive energy and its VIRTUAL anti-particle falls into the black hole carrying negative energy. This is only possible because the virtual particle would be annihilated very quickly when it hits the central singularity of the black hole. It is an example of quantum mechanical tunneling (like radioactive decay).
------------
AsiA I suggest you go here and read posts 150 through 159.
---------------
AsiA
Creation ex nihilo -- meaning something from nothing -- would violate the law of causality, which states that the actions possible to any entity are determined by its identity, i.e. by the kind of entity it is. That which does not exist possesses no identity and hence is capable of no action. Non-existence is not capable of transforming itself into existence.


Given that space is a relation between entities rather than an existing 'substance', why does the increasing of space between entities necessitate creation ex nihlio?

Hal, I recommend you advance this question to Stephen Speicher in his forum.
-------------------
jrs:
Hawking radiation is produced by the zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum around a black hole. I suppose that one could argue about whether such fluctuations exist or merely subsist. But they have an identity -- they are represented by Feynman diagrams and they have predictable effects which have been measured.

QUOTE(Cole @ Post #61)

Doesn't the standard quantum mechanics explanation for the results of the double-slit experiment require that photons (or whatever is being discussed) travel as both a particle and a wave?

The way I usually describe it is that photons propagate (move) as waves, but interact as particles. But this is a simplification.

Actually, neither classical particles nor classical waves exist at all. Rather there is one kind of entity. Classical particles are an idealization of what entities act like in one kind of limiting case. Classical waves are an idealization of what entities act like in another kind of limiting case.

Particle-like actions are the result of a "collapse of the wave function", i.e. the breakdown of entanglement (interference) due to interactions with things outside the system being studied.

Wave-like actions occur when the system remains isolated or when so much of the system is participating in the motion that external interactions are insufficient to break the entanglement.
--+++
I asked a friend who is an astronomer to recommend a website dealing with the expansion of the Universe and related matters. He suggested this one:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog...html#BBevidence
=============
I think that the question "Can god exist?" is one of those questions which implies something false is true, no matter what one answers. Whatever I answer - yes or no - I am accepting this implication. The implication is that "god" is a term which is clearly defined, that it refers to an existent which man has recognized, studied and named properly.

This isn't true. God is purely fictional, and if it can exist, then it is as a figment of one's imagination, a product of fear, or as a character in a lousy book or movie. God is not clearly defined. Everyone can think of it what he will. I prefer not to.

">Voldemort himself created his worst enemy, just as tyrants everywhere do! Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realise that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!
Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

[I fear a] cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them. And all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.
Eowyn in The Lord of the Rings

With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard quoting Judge Aaron Satie in Star Trek: The Next Generation

My website: Source the Developer
You can also visit my Forum
or my blog