The Solipsist's God

[Logical Realist]

Yes

Yes of course I have "to be truely open minded one should be willing to admit that one is wrong". But this works both ways friend. And that's why going by reason and logic is so important because only by such standards does one avoid being dogmatic by retaining the ability to correct one's mistakes. And since I go by reason and logic I don't admit I'm wrong until the evidence warrants nor would I expect anyone else too. Ta.

[GePap]

Problem

Logical realist:
You state that reason and logic are paramount. Well then, if God is onmicient, which is vital for Omnipotence, then God must know the truth, arrived by Logic and Reason. Thus, what he commands is Good, since it is based on infinite knowledge and perfect reason. This, at least, would be the counter-argument. I myself don't belive it, but it is one you must keep in mind.

My biggest problem with God is Hell- i don't see the need to punish for eternity those that were bad- how does God show love with infinite torture. God could just as well cause them to cease to exist(oblivion), so that they are not rewarded but without being bloodthirsty. I agree with Nietzsche that the trully powerful are magnanomous, since they have nothing to fear, and thus no need to punish- for me, a God that punishes is a God afraid of something, and that seems troublesome.

[Rogan Josh]

Re: The Solipsist's God

Originally posted by Logical Realist
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

There is no such thing as 'true objectivism'. Everything is subjective. Everything you experience is influenced and affected by who you are, and someone else in the same situation may have an entirely different experience.

Even science is subjective. Quantum mechanical systems are insperable from the observer. Furthermore, in science we assume that there is one set of laws and one logic for everyone in the universe, but this is only an assumption to make science possible. It is a good assumption, but still an assumption - even physical laws and 'logic' could be different for different people.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Re: Problem

Originally posted by GePap
My biggest problem with God is Hell- i don't see the need to punish for eternity those that were bad- how does God show love with infinite torture

You see like a punition. But you can see that your soul is too 'dirty' for God and the I cannot save you from being tortured by his eternal foe : Satan.

[Rogan Josh]

Re: Problem

Originally posted by GePap
My biggest problem with God is Hell- i don't see the need to punish for eternity those that were bad- how does God show love with infinite torture. God could just as well cause them to cease to exist(oblivion), so that they are not rewarded but without being bloodthirsty.

Your picture of Hell is coming from human propaganda.

I personally would regard Hell as oblivion but still existing (ie existing in nothingness, completely isolated from everything else). By rejecting God you reject eternal life with him and must suffer oblivion forever. You are not being punished but being without God, in any form, would not be plesent, since it is only through His creation that we experience the world arround us. Rejecting Him is rejecting that. This seems fair enough to me - after all, it is your choice.

[Jack the Bodiless]

If I decide that I don't want strawberry icecream today, that doesn't mean I am renouncing strawberry icecream forever. Nor does it mean that I have a limited time period (until the end of next week, maybe) in which I must decide whether to include or exclude strawberry icecream from my life from then on.

[Goingonit]

Re: Kant

Originally posted by Logical Realist
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.

Same argument then. God created the nature of reality. God, thus, as the existence of God predates the adherence of the universe to logic (remember, before God created the universe there was chaos), God may be anomalous if we assume God to be part of a rational, logical framework.

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.

But there is nothing about God that leads to a subjective reality.

Solipsism is, for example, Berkley's proof of the nonexistence of matter, or someone saying that they are the only real poster no Apolyton and the rest of you are all DLs.


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). [/QUOTE]
You mean like Through The Looking Glass. But nobody is saying that God imagines the Universe. Just because I create something doesn't mean that it exists only by virtue of my mind.

[Goingonit]

Re: Re: The Solipsist's God

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
There is no such thing as 'true objectivism'. Everything is subjective. Everything you experience is influenced and affected by who you are, and someone else in the same situation may have an entirely different experience.

Even science is subjective. Quantum mechanical systems are insperable from the observer. Furthermore, in science we assume that there is one set of laws and one logic for everyone in the universe, but this is only an assumption to make science possible. It is a good assumption, but still an assumption - even physical laws and 'logic' could be different for different people.

This is a solipsist argument. You are assuming that your mind is the only thing you can truly count on. "I think, therefore I am". Rather than refuting you, I will direct you here: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm

[Ecowiz Returns]

My biggest critic to your reasoning is that you claim the Power is the backbone of this "third entity" legitimacy.

To Christianity, God is All Mighty (i.e., the most powerfull character arround), but He is also All Knowing, Perfect, and our Loving Father.

So, for the sake of the argument, let's assume all these assumptions are true.

Morality is basicly a set of rules that define what is termed as Correct Behaviour.

Could it be that such a Omniscient God, knows those rules? I would find logical that He would.

Does being conscious of the existence of that God help to promote moral atitudes among humans?
That is a different question, harder to answer.
The Christian answer, if I interpret it correctly, takes some further assumptions:
- We, humans, are limited, imperfect beings.
- From this assumption one derives the belief that, without some awareness of God's Will (which could as easilly be defined as that Perfect Set of Moral Rules He knows), all human moral rules are faulty.

- God, as a Loving Father/Creator, gave us, through some chosen humans some of His Knowledge.
- Now, this is the tricky assumption. How can we be sure those that present themselves to be proclaimers of His Will were actual profets other that egomaniacs, nutcrackers, plain con-men or other?
- Basicly we have a coherence test: is their message coherent with that of a Loving, Omniscient God? are their actions coherent with their message (in this latest test one should remember we are talking about humans, not "angels")?

- God, also gave us some pointers in our own nature (we are not primal beasts in need of guidance, only imperfect sons set in a path to join our Father in Sanctity).
- This assumption allows, of course, a Christian to accept moral ruling of other religions or even of an atheist nature as correct, as long as they are coherent with the Will of a Loving, Omniscient God. It also allows for morally correct natural behaviour.

One should note that there is no human society where we can trace moral rullings to anything else than religious teachings and doctrines - even our now more agnostic and atheist modern societies are based in Christian/Jewish or Confucionist/Budist morals. So it is pretty much difficult to envision how morals can survive religion (although I'm not saying it is impossible). However, Jesus Himself said that, in the end, all will perish (rules too I believe) and only Love will survive.

I'm sure my discription had some faults in itself. Please, feel free to complete it and to criticize it.

[Rogan Josh]

Re: Re: Re: The Solipsist's God

Originally posted by Goingonit
This is a solipsist argument. You are assuming that your mind is the only thing you can truly count on. "I think, therefore I am".

No it isn't. A solipsist believes that he is the only being in the universe. All I was saying is that everyone has different perceptions of reality - that no two observers can experience the same things. This is surely undeniable.

Incidentally, the link you provided doesn't do a very good job of refuting solipsism - it merely presents an opinion of why it is a silly idea (which I agree with).

[Adam Smith]

Most of you have the same problem as the medieval theologians you criticize....you have waaaayyy too much time on your hands.

My view is that I don't need to understand engineering or physics in order to cross a bridge. So its time to get on to what we are called to do as Christians: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, cure the sick, free the captive, instruct the ignorant, etc., etc., etc.

[loinburger]

Re: Problem

Originally posted by GePap
You state that reason and logic are paramount. Well then, if God is onmicient, which is vital for Omnipotence, then God must know the truth, arrived by Logic and Reason. Thus, what he commands is Good, since it is based on infinite knowledge and perfect reason. This, at least, would be the counter-argument. I myself don't belive it, but it is one you must keep in mind.

This requires the assumption that God would always do Good. It also grants that Good can be determined through logic and reason, and is thus separate from God (i.e. the tautology "True = True" was not whimsically created by God, but is instead evident to we mere mortals; if morality is bound by logic and reason, then we mere mortals can figure out what is right and wrong without God interfering).

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Most of you have the same problem as the medieval theologians you criticize....you have waaaayyy too much time on your hands.

It's hardly my fault that I'm stuck here in this computer lab, listening to my professor lecture on topics that I already know about. Apolyton makes this five hours a week bearable. (I wonder if most of those medieval theologians were just trying to avoid nagging wives and screaming kids...)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Goingonit
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).

But this misses the point. The opening post was a direct critque of the Christian morality

"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."

The debate will have to centre around Orthodox Christian doctrines about their god and their morality.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Problem

Originally posted by GePap
Logical realist:
You state that reason and logic are paramount. Well then, if God is onmicient, which is vital for Omnipotence, then God must know the truth, arrived by Logic and Reason.

How's omniscience vital for omnipotence?

If you define omniscience as "knowing everything," it is impossible to arrive at certain truths by logic. Some truths are just basic facts.