"I think therefore I am."

"God is dead."

"Who created the Universe?", is a ligitimate fundamental question to ask.

"I believe in god."

"I am not a god believer."

Of the foregoing 5 statements only 1 is correct.

Can you figure out which one it is?

Hint: I used to be a Christian, now I'm an Objectivist sympathizer. I've been an Objectivist sympathizer since the late 70's. During the '80's only one of these statements was correct also but it was a different one.

If you figured out it is the fifth one --I am not a god believer-- then you are correct.

Everybody can think but not everyone can reason.

Why is this and what's the difference? (Is there a difference?)

Can a 1 year old figure out what a 2 year old can?

A two year old what a 4 year old can?

A 4 what a 8? ... 8 what a 16? ... 16 what a 32? ... 32 what a 64? ... 64....

There is definitely something (up to a point) from a developement/ aging influence.

Or is there?

All new-borns are the same in there capabilities, as are all 1 and 2 year olds and to some extent even all 4 year olds are very similar in the degree of their capabilities (no 4 year old could frame a house or write the computer code beneath the computer code that puts and manages Gary's Venns on your computer. If you are going to argue that they could write a symphony, I believe Mozart was 5 before even he could do this.)

So, yes, there is something from a development point of view: metaphysically your capacity to do has to exist before you can use it, to do.

Mozart and some few other geniuses are proof that our conceptual faculty exits by age 5 ... for sure by age 7. My earliest recollection of making a moral choice is at age 5 (though I have bits and pieces of memory from an earlier age, I can't put them together with the same kind of introspective confidence in order to conclude that 5 is not my personal earliest...what's yours?... and though this is really, really digressing I can't let it go. If I was making moral decisions at age 5 and you were making them somewhere between 3 and 7 and we have 11,12,13,14,15 year old boys in this country shooting and killing other human beings why do we NOT hold them morally responsibile? If this is due to a "liberal" attitude then it alone is enough to condemn all liberals to hell. But I thought you didn't believe in god? I don't. I use "hell" as a metaphor. By it I mean, "I wished there was a god, so he (or she) could properly punish liberals.{yikes!...does this hint at 'why' some people start to believe in a god? ... could be ... and if so, does this mean that the Objectivists are wrong in ONE of their arguments? --though this last: Objectivists wrong about anything; is really farfetched (and I absolutely do not mean this sarcastically)-- the Objectivists are so consistently right that it's tempting for me to abandon my own personal reasoning process here and to simply give in to the temptation of the authoritarian short cut, but I refuse to do it. So, does this mean that the Objectivists are wrong when they say that it's wrong to ask the question, "Who created the Universe" because if you answer 'god did' you only move the problem back one step. And in so doing you create an infinite regress, because next it is then logical to ask: "Who created god?" Then if you answer, a super-god created god...you can see the hopeless regress... to... uncertainty. But based on what "we've" discovered(?) here, this last has a possible answer and avoids the infinite regress: So, who created god? Simple: man did. But, if so then you do the logic: If god created the Universe and man created god does this mean man created the Universe? Obviously not. It simply is one place where you can apply the Aristotelean/Objectivist axiom: Contradictions do not exist. You apply it thusly: when you 'hit' a contradiction it is proof that something somewhere is wrong and you need to and should think more about it until you resolve the contradiction. Here is one area where psychological values have a payoff. If you value self-awareness and have practiced it enough to be pretty self-aware then you will be able to detect a contradiction in your thinking by the feelings of discomfort that contradictions invariably produce in your psyche. Additionally, if you value self-honesty you will value intellectual-honesty and if you value intellectual-honesty you will let NO contradiction stand unchallenged and no FUNDAMENTAL contradiction go unresolved forever. }

If you want to have a metaphorical god, it's ok with me...as long as you admit it is a metaphor.