The Solipsist's God

[Guest]

I notice that a typical Christian argument tends to be that without God, all becomes a matter of opinion or morality becomes a matter of opinion. Yet what I've always wondered is how it is that the existence of God changes any of that? The answer is, it doesn't; not really. In reality it just puts one being's opinion higher than another, something that the Christian said was already impossible.


Christians state that Christianity is a safeguard against subjectivism. Yet in reality Christianity only posits a third person subjectivism(a third person solipsism). All opinions are equal, yet some are more equal than others, with God's opinion being on top. And why is God's opinion on top? Because God is more powerful than YOU. That's the only reason, thus Christians seem to, in their hearts, believe that truth is determined by Power. God is Power and thus God is Truth. Thus 2+2=5 if God says so.


Thus contrary to what many believe, Christianity does not in any way refute the relativist position, it merely affirms it, then takes a leap into absurdity.

The situation here does not change much in regards to morality either. Christians state that without God, there is no morality. That people's morals are all a matter of mere opinion. Then Christians claim that with God, morality becomes absolu te. Yet this ignores the fact that morality would then just be a matter of God's opinion. It would remain just as arbitrary. The catch? Again that God is more powerful than anyone else. In other words, morality, like reality, is only a matter of brute force. Thus dictators are the source of morality and God is the ultimate, magical dictator. Thus murder, rape, theft, its all good by definition, because God says so.

I wonder if they even consider what this view implies. If morality is determined by power, then it means that any atrocity or act of violence, no matter how depraved, is acceptable, if it is backed by enough power.

I wonder if they realize how illogical it is to state that its all opinion, then state that this opinion is the "Truth".

I presented this argument to a Pastor one time, all he could say was "Well God's a dictator but he's a good dictator"!? I wonder how one can call God good when it?s all opinion. How one can be so willing to abandon all reason, morality and freedom in the face of supernatural whim.

For too long I think people have equated Christianity with absolutism and objectivism, when in fact it is the opposite. It is merely a third person subjectivism, merely a third person relativism. It is a pretender and ought to be exposed. It is a third person solipsism and idealism, in that all is in the "mind of God".

That is thus one reason why I am an atheist. It is because with an atheist philosophy there can come true objectivism. One recognizes that a thing is what it is, that reality works the way it does, regardless of anyone's thoughts, including "God's". That one does not get out of the swamp of extreme cognitive relativism by making it third person but by questioning relativism at the existential and epistemological level. By means of adhering to realist-logical-humanistic principles.

Do any of you on this board agree with this? Questions, comments and criticisms would be appreciated.

[Goingonit]

Indeed. There are many moral and ethical systems less arbitrary than God: existentialism, Kant's categorical imperative, etc.

God, however, should we accept that God did, indeed, create the universe, and does care about human religion, would have created morality as part of the universe. God's morality would not be arbitrarily imposed on the universe, but rather would accompany the universe and be the result of the same divine plan.

But, of course, you need to accept that God really did intend for us to accept on faith a religion involving someone being, in the words of Douglas Adams, "nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change".

[Guynemer]

As always, you must be careful when making blanket statements like this. Certainly not all Christians believe as you posit. I'd go so far as to say that most of them do NOT believe what you've said.

[Logical Realist]

Goingonit: God, however, should we accept that God did, indeed, create the universe, and does care about human religion, would have created morality as part of the universe. God's morality would not be arbitrarily imposed on the universe, but rather would accompany the universe and be the result of the same divine plan.

God is still however still just making stuff up then on the basis of nothing more then his whim. All this would mean is that the entire universe was a matter of God's whim. Morality then would be arbitrary as the universe would be arbitrary.

Also if God already made morality a fabric of the universe, that would exist without Him being there; then that would mean people do not need God in order to have morality.

Guynemer:As always, you must be careful when making blanket statements like this. Certainly not all Christians believe as you posit. I'd go so far as to say that most of them do NOT believe what you've said.

I am aware that some Christians may have a more realist perspective but for the vast majority if not Christianity as a whole, this is what their view implies when taken to its most logical conclusions. If God creates and runs the universe and morals then all is God's whim.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
God is still however still just making stuff up then on the basis of nothing more then his whim. All this would mean is that the entire universe was a matter of God's whim. Morality then would be arbitrary as the universe would be arbitrary.

Also if God already made morality a fabric of the universe, that would exist without Him being there; then that would mean people do not need God in order to have morality.

But at least God's whim is internally logical. We have no choice but to live in God's universe, and God's laws are, presumably, the most correct for God's universe.

And I never said that they are in the fabric of the universe, only that they are specifically created to work with this universe.

(disclaimer: this whole post assumes what I postulated in the last post)

[Logical Realist]

Goingonit: But at least God's whim is internally logical. We have no choice but to live in God's universe, and God's laws are, presumably, the most correct for God's universe.

The whole thing is still like a solipsist dictatorship though...which is what my point was. And based on Power...which was another of my points. In this system any universe would do if God just decidec for whatever reason, the universe should have been different. And any act that we consider immoral could be made moral tomorrow...if God decided that's how it should go.

And I never said that they are in the fabric of the universe, only that they are specifically created to work with this universe.

I'm not clear then on what you meant by "works". I assumed you meant they were part of this universe as in that , they would have to be to at least attain some semblance of objectivity. Are you positing some sort of netherworld? In that case still people can bypass God and go to the source. I mean it seems to be that for these morals to be real, they must be either in God, or outside of God. If outside of God....God can be bypassed and is not needed for morality.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
The whole thing is still like a solipsist dictatorship though...which is what my point was. And based on Power...which was another of my points. In this system any universe would do if God just decidec for whatever reason, the universe should have been different. And any act that we consider immoral could be made moral tomorrow...if God decided that's how it should go.

It is based on God being the Supreme Creator of the Universe, which, indeed, is a powerful position.

And I'm still not sure how you bring solipsism into this. What do you define it as? I see it defined as the belief that in principle, 'existence' means for me my existence and that of my mental states. (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm)

I'm not clear then on what you meant by "works". I assumed you meant they were part of this universe as in that , they would have to be to at least attain some semblance of objectivity. Are you positing some sort of netherworld? In that case still people can bypass God and go to the source. I mean it seems to be that for these morals to be real, they must be either in God, or outside of God. If outside of God....God can be bypassed and is not needed for morality.

God may have created a moral code which turns out to be the code which functions best within the bounds of our universe. But the code may not be externally evident, and thus God has to tell us.

Or maybe the logical foundation of this code is unfathomable by human minds, and thus we must accept it on faith.

Of course, maybe the universe is God's idea of a practical joke. The problem with metaphysics is that without the twin pillars of reason and experience, there are no bounds to possible conclusions. And of course Occam's Razor is invalid when there are no facts, only postulates.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Goingonit
But at least God's whim is internally logical. We have no choice but to live in God's universe, and God's laws are, presumably, the most correct for God's universe.

But it is not. If the bible is the only thing we have on what the Christian god has to say about everything, surely this is not a consistent god. In the OT he claimed that he created evil, which of course contradicts what the NT says about him.

Incidentally, the Argument from Evil is one of the two most powerful philosophical arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christianity god.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


But it is not. If the bible is the only thing we have on what the Christian god has to say about everything, surely this is not a consistent god. In the OT he claimed that he created evil, which of course contradicts what the NT says about him.

Incidentally, the Argument from Evil is one of the two most powerful philosophical arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christianity god.

I am not debating the existence of God; I am assuming God's existence and God's creation of the universe. I am not necessarily talking about a Christian god, just a Sureme Being with those two assumptions and the assumption of logic (which in metaphysics is indeed a leap of faith).

[Logical Realist]

Definitions

And I'm still not sure how you bring solipsism into this. What do you define it as? I see it defined as the belief that in principle, 'existence' means for me my existence and that of my mental states. (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm)

I define it as the position that all reality is a creation of some sort of mind. Which is what Christians advocate and is why solipsist criticisms so easily apply to Christianity. In Christian solipsism we are all products of someone else's mind....God's. This sort of solipsism assumes that some minds are more powerful then other's and that the most powerful mind is in charge.

God may have created a moral code which turns out to be the code which functions best within the bounds of our universe. But the code may not be externally evident, and thus God has to tell us.

Or maybe the logical foundation of this code is unfathomable by human minds, and thus we must accept it on faith.

Well in that case God cannot be bypassed because he is the inventor of the code. The solipsist idea.In that case God is still like a dictator that one must follow blindly.

I am unlcear though what you mean by "functions best" though.

If the logicl foundation is unfathomable we could never know that by means of reason and such a position would be an arbitrary assumption. I think what you speak of as a sort of "God as a Guide" not as a "Master". Such a position would be advocated by Plato with his Demiurge(some deontologica system), but it is based on supernaturalism and invention and is via Occam's Razor eliminated as more materialistic explanations of morality are available.

Such a position though is not the Christian one at all(in Christianity God made ALL and is the source of,not the discoverer, of morality). And is such offers no sanctuary to the Christian who is in the solipsist dilema.

[Logical Realist]

Logic is faith?

the assumption of logic (which in metaphysics is indeed a leap of faith).

Are you saying that belief in logic is a matter of faith?

Aren't you perhaps by doing that confusing faith with belief in general? I'd say there was a clear empirical difference between beliefs based on faith and those based on logic.

[Goingonit]

Re: Logic is faith?

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Are you saying that belief in logic is a matter of faith?

Aren't you perhaps by doing that confusing faith with belief in general? I'd say there was a clear empirical difference between beliefs based on faith and those based on logic.

I was joking. However, logic is idead an a priori assumption. Kant stated that logic, as a synthetic a priori belief, must be true due to the nature of the brain which is reasoning. However, if God created logic and the brain, must logic apply where God is concerned?

[Goingonit]

Re: Definitions

Originally posted by Logical Realist


I define it as the position that all reality is a creation of some sort of mind. Which is what Christians advocate and is why solipsist criticisms so easily apply to Christianity. In Christian solipsism we are all products of someone else's mind....God's. This sort of solipsism assumes that some minds are more powerful then other's and that the most powerful mind is in charge.

Well then solipsism is not fallacious if we postulate the existence of God.

That is not the general definition of solipsism though.

[Logical Realist]

Kant

I was joking. However, logic is idead an a priori assumption. Kant stated that logic, as a synthetic a priori belief, must be true due to the nature of the brain which is reasoning. However, if God created logic and the brain, must logic apply where God is concerned?

I disagree with a lot of Kant, since Kant was sort of a crypto-subjectivist. I think logic is a reflection of reality and its nature. By which we can judge a claim as accurate or inaccurate in its description of reality...God being one of them.

Well then solipsism is not fallacious if we postulate the existence of God.

That is not the general definition of solipsism though.

Solipsism has always been fallacious since it is unprovable and inconsistent. If true, it'd have to be true objectively and hence false as something objective would therefore exist. The very act of saying that a real, objective, reality is subjective is asburd. Its like saying that fiction is fact....that's asburd.

In fact the adhernce to the solipsist position is known in logic as the "subjectivist fallacy". Due to its absurd nature. I don't see how God changes that.

Also my definition is based on the recognition that there are different types of solipsism/idealism. There's personal/first person (my mind is reality). Collective (we imagine reality) and third person (Bob imagines reality).

[David Floyd]

LR-

Just wanted to ask you a simple question.

Have you ever considered the possibility of you being wrong?

Just curious.