• Wallows
    9k
    If you accept God: omnipotent, omniscient, eternally omnipresent.

    Solipsist: Nothing outside the mind should be believed to exist. If ones own mind is the sum total of existence, then all perceived experience and existential things(i.e. the universe) are all merely internal processes of the mind.

    So, does that make God a solipsist?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
  • Wallows
    9k
    Addendum: Is God the only true solipsist in the world?
  • Sum Dude
    34
    If God is a person, or even isn't a person or entity, and we are all people or Human Beings or entities, I will state that my opinion is that our species and any other sentient species are fragmented aspects of God's mind.

    God can't be a single person, if he she or it was, it would emphatically be, just a dude.

    Once you become more then one consciousness, your identity melts, you stop existing, i.e. you die.

    Interesting topic.

    If the notion that everything is in God's mind, the closest thing we can relate that to would be a dream, whether or not it's a sleeping dream or daydreaming or imagining I can't say.

    But even IF this were true and God were the original Structure, it would mean it needs a context preceding it.

    The original context is lack of context, which is the structure from which all things come from.

    The original structure and/or context (It's hard to explain with language especially over the internet.) Is a Non-Nothing.

    Stick with me. There is no such thing as nothing, but now there is because I said there is.

    If existence is A and nothingness is B but A is dependent on B that means A and B are essentially arbitrary. Yes, I read a couple chapters of On Being And Nothingness, and no I didn't read the whole book because it's dense in unnecessary pedantic words.

    The Structure and Context are FACILLITATED by nothing, not CREATED by it.

    What facilitates nothing? Everything. What facilitates everything? Nothing.

    This is The Tao postulated by Lao Tzu.

    It's pretty easy to see what my biggest influences are.
  • Sum Dude
    34
    God is what happens when our supposed multiple consciousness of individuation die. God cannot be conscious, if God were conscious he would just be a dude.

    The notion that we are in God's dream makes sense at first. However, if you have ever tried to read or look at a watch or clock in a dream you will likely not see any kind of symbols that mean anything to you.

    This indicates there is a contextless origin of structure, i.e. A Non Nothing.

    Think of nothing, now it is something.

    The original Structure and/Context are totally arbitrary although self evident in it's own way.

    What facilitates nothing? Everything. What facilitates everything? Nothing.

    It is not original creation, and even if it were it would be facilitated. If it were not originally facilitated it would be a thing that was already created.

    Think about infinite space. What do you think of? Outerspace? Space can also be that which OCCUPIES space. Meaning a full solid structure. Both are fully justifiable as space.

    If you can imagine something that was either nothing or something it is now that something in your mind. You can imagine "nothing" but what do you think of? Blackness and empty space? Those are both something.

    This is the Tao, the ever expanding perspective. Wherever you look, it goes farther, whenever you make it larger it becomes smaller.
  • Wallows
    9k
    I'm returning to this thread after almost a year.

    I have come to the conclusion that God is the only true solipsist. However, given that God can do anything imaginable and unimaginable (omnipotence), there is a way to counter her solipsism. I am going to utilize a naive understanding of epistemic logic to this goal of showing that God is both a solipsist and not a solipsist. I welcome anyone to comment on the coherence of this pseudo-proof, which I am working on formalizing. This will be an informal proof of showing that God is capable of being a solipsist and not a solipsist, both at the same time.

    Now, given that God is omniscient, and knows everything since she is one and the same with the world itself. The world is everything that is both the case and not the case. By "the world" I intend to mean, that God inhabits every possible world that may or may not be actualized.

    The hinge proposition that allows me to assert that God is a solipsist is the following: "A solipsist cannot doubt". Now, given this proposition, the implication is that a solipsist cannot doubt due to living in a world full of certainty. Where there is a certainty, doubt cannot arise. Furthermore, given certainty, this implies epistemic closure, which any skepticist would decry as heresy. However, omniscience implies epistemic closure in any given set of world'(s) or singular world.

    The flipside is reconciling omnipotence with omniscience. If God is indeed a solipsist, then she cannot doubt per the above. Yet, God is omnipotent. So, how does one, in some sense, escape the boundaries of absolute omniscience, or epistemic closure? The answer is that God is not an individual agent since she is equated with the same knowledge of inhabiting every possible world. Thus, God's knowledge is not limited to one possible world; but, an infinite many. Thus, God has the ability to expand her knowledge to infinite many possible worlds.

    Thus, I conclude, and this is the important part, that if God is equated with the sum total of all possible worlds, then she is still a solipsist. Therefore, either God is a solipsist under this assumption or the other alternative, that God transcends the world in an unimaginable, unspeakable, and ineffable sense and is not a solipsist. Or to put this more succinctly, God cannot attain (absolute) epistemic closure, given that this would imply solipsism.

    Any thoughts, criticisms, and questions welcome.
  • Valentinus
    559
    If your are going to have a creator who made all the stuff, it is going to be difficult to talk about.
    My first question is why bother with all this.
    The emptiness of the creator is the root of many myths formed around the idea.
    An interesting quality of Taoist writings is that the teaching is purely ostensive. We cannot talk about what we want to talk about.
  • Wallows
    9k
    If your are going to have a creator who made all the stuff, it is going to be difficult to talk about.
    My first question is why bother with all this.
    Valentinus

    Because it's an interesting thought experiment. Despite the amusing quality of having God as a solipsist, which seems inherently true, how do you go about addressing the skeptical argument? I mean, in Descartes writing the evil demon who prods the individual to doubt is an ad hoc proof that one does not live in a solipsistic universe.
  • Valentinus
    559

    I meant why should any creator bother with all of this. If we are the creatures trying to get a clue what is going on, the signs on the road are mostly posted by us, the clueless people on the road.
  • Wallows
    9k
    I meant why should any creator bother with all of this. If we are the creatures trying to get a clue what is going on, the signs on the road are mostly posted by us, the clueless people on the road.Valentinus

    Yes; but, God is a solipsist or not?
  • Valentinus
    559

    Yes; but, God is a solipsist or not?Wallows

    The idea is only worth entertaining if he/she is not.
  • Wallows
    9k
    The idea is only worth entertaining if he/she is not.Valentinus

    Please expand. What do you mean?
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    God as the only being, in whom everything that was, is, or will be exists, seems consistent with solipsism.

    Of course, God as conceived in the Western, Judeo-Christian scheme of things, made the world separate from himself. (It's all there in Genesis.) So the Western God of Abraham can not be a solipsist, because the world (cosmos, universe, multiverse?) isn't one and the same as God.

    At least, that's the way I understand it.

    Now, you wouldn't be the first person to deviate from the standard God paradigm. Some westerners, yea, even unto North Dakota and farther afield, thought/think that everything is in God, and God is in everything, such that everything that is what it is is*** God.

    See that beautiful rose? God. See that bright star? God. See that manure pile covered with flies? God. See me? God. Want to see God? You are already there.

    *** Just a bow to the man who made "It is what it is" famous, hereabouts.
  • Valentinus
    559

    We are the created. That such a thing happened is of great interest. But the way we talk about that captures some things and misses others.
  • Wallows
    9k
    God as the only being, in whom everything that was, is, or will be exists, seems consistent with solipsism.Bitter Crank

    Yes, that is my starting premise.

    Of course, God as conceived in the Western, Judeo-Christian scheme of things, made the world separate from himself. (It's all there in Genesis.) So the Western God of Abraham can not be a solipsist, because the world (cosmos, universe, multiverse?) isn't one and the same as God.Bitter Crank

    Yes, this is where I think Spinoza's pantheism fails or at least implies solipsism. In fact, any form of pantheism leads to the above conclusions. I've always identified myself as a pantheist so hence the above reasonings.

    See that beautiful rose? God. See that bright star? God. See that manure pile covered with flies? God. See me? God. Want to see God? You are already there.Bitter Crank

    *Head explodes*
  • Wallows
    9k
    We are the created. That such a thing happened is of great interest. But the way we talk about that captures some things and misses others.Valentinus

    Yes, we are. As to the implicit question as to why there is something rather than nothing... Well, that question is such a tongue twister, that I dare not address it.

    So, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one ought to remain silent?
  • Valentinus
    559
    So, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one ought to remain silent?Wallows

    And here we are, not sure if that is the right answer.
    I do like the proposition because it does not claim what it cannot describe.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.3k
    If God is a solipsist, then I'm the God/solipsist, as I know that I have a mind, and you all only exist as internet posts when I read them. None of you are actually even human beings - just words on a screen.
  • christian2017
    450


    if it is good to be a solipsist the why not be one? I believe God puts a tremendous amount of thought in everything he/she does. i believe he is is a he.. The book of Job says God built this universe with wizdom.
  • Wallows
    9k


    Not true. God is the ultimate solipsist. You are merely an avatar posing as God.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    Of course, God as conceived in the Western, Judeo-Christian scheme of things, made the world separate from himself.Bitter Crank

    Then God can't be omnipresent.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.3k
    Not true. God is the ultimate solipsist. You are merely an avatar posing as God.Wallows
    But I don't know that I'm really an avatar posing as god, therefore god can't be omniscient. All I know is that I have a mind, and if solipsism is true, then I am the solipsist by default and you are just an internet forum post because solipsism is the state of affairs where there are no other minds other than my own.

    If you are claiming to be an avatar with a mind too, then solipsism cant be the case, or you would have to at least redefine what a mind is.
  • Wallows
    9k
    But I don't know that I'm really an avatar posing as god, therefore god can't be omniscient. All I know is that I have a mind, and if solipsism is true, then I am the solipsist by default and you are just an internet forum post because solipsism is the srate of affairs where there are no other minds other than my own.Harry Hindu

    No, no, good Sir. Only God is a true solipsist. So, we are all just figments of God's imagination, until God wakes up and decides to start playing peekaboo with Itself or musical chairs or some such game.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.3k
    How can I be a figment of god's imagination if I have a mind? If my experiences are not my mind, then what is a mind?
  • Wallows
    9k
    How can I be a figment of god's imagination if I have a mind? If my experiences are not my mind, then what is a mind?Harry Hindu

    Well, you, we, all of us, seem to miss the point about there being no "self" in a solipsistic world. Thus, "minds" kinda go *poof*.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.3k
    So you are saying that none of us have a mind including God? That would just be a mindless state of affairs no different than how science describes reality.

    If God is the only one with a mind then how is it that you even know what a mind is to say that God has the only one if what you experience and "are" isn't a mind? Again, what is a mind, if God is the only one and we aren't?
  • Wallows
    9k
    So you are saying that none of us have a mind except God?Harry Hindu

    Hypothetically, yes. Although, the act of endowing us with a free will would contrive with this line of reasoning. Again, I'm basing all of this on the Tractatus version of Spinozian pantheism.

    Then how is it that you even know what a mind is to say that God has the only one if what you experience and "are" isn't a mind?Harry Hindu

    For all I know, and that's not a lot, I assume that agency is irrelevant, given God's solipsism.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.3k
    For all I know, and that's not a lot I assume that agency is irrelevant, given God's solipsism.Wallows
    But how do you know anything if you aren't a mind?

    If agency is irrelevant then that is no different than saying that reality is unintentional which is the same explanation science provides.
  • Wallows
    9k
    But how do you know anything if you aren't a mind?Harry Hindu

    Well, this goes deep into the realm of epistemology and what constitutes knowledge. But, not to profess sophistry, I suppose we can assert that epistemic closure is possible in a pragmatic sense, by which I mean that certainty is a fallacious concept apart from degrees of knowledge.

    If agency is irrelevant then that is no different than describing the same unintentional nature of reality that science provides.Harry Hindu

    I'm not following you here, can you elaborate?
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    Then God can't be omnipresent.Terrapin Station

    Why not? I don't see a problem in God being omnipresent in a cosmos that is separate from God.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.3k
    For all I know, and that's not a lot, I assume that agency is irrelevant, given God's solipsism.Wallows
    If intentionality isnt a necessary component of mind, then if God's mind lacks intentionality, how is that any different from a physical universe that is shaped by mindless, unintentional forces, the way way science describes reality?

    If intentionality can be a component of mind, but isnt a necessary component, then it can be said that there are multiple minds in which case solipsism isnt the case. We could have minds too as you havent defined what mind is. All you have said is what is irrelevant. Your primary concern should be in defining mind in a coherent fashion before you can make coherent claims about the existence of gods and the case for solipsism.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    Why not? I don't see a problem in God being omnipresent in a cosmos that is separate from God.Bitter Crank

    If there's something separate from God then there are places where God is not located.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment