God cannot solve solipsism

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 36
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
While definitions of God vary, some of its central tenants are that he is all knowing, all powerful and creator of everything. Let’s imagine the following:

God creates a bubble of reality unconnected to anything else. Within this bubble he creates a being that is all powerful and all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble, so this being is free to create anything he wants; Universes, multiverses, heaven, hell, etc. We’ll call this being God 2. But God decides that he will conceal all knowledge of himself or anything outside of this bubble from God 2. As far as God 2 knows, this bubble is reality, nothing outside of it exists.

Question: if you pray, how does the God you pray to know that he is not God 2?
#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I've sometimes worried to myself, that a person can 'never escape the possibility of the unknown.
A fear or feeling I usually get from Horror Fiction, in which people are abused by some powerful, malevolent, impossible to have known to have existed force, a shattering of the worlds natural or 'good functioning as one knows it.
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Is a central tenant a person that rents the apartment in the middle?

Apologies...But this mistake made me chuckle.


And mixing text and numbers can sometimes be confusing.

Do you mean God2, as opposed to oneself.

Or God2, as opposed to God1 or God3 etc.

Or do you mean God too.


Though in the first instance....If you pray...You have only presumed that something other than yourself, is interested in your prayer.
#4
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Let’s imagine the following:
And there is the primal issue with imagination. Whatever follows is no better than an if/then proposition: it acknowledges only that which is currently not true.
So, what?
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Is a central tenant a person that rents the apartment in the middle?
Trust a Brit to understand his language better than the typical Yank.

I was once surprised by a Brit driving his Jag who invited me to take a look under his bonnet, and imagine my surprise seeing he wore no hat.
#6
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
While definitions of God vary, some of its central tenants are that he is all knowing, all powerful and creator of everything. Let’s imagine the following:

God creates a bubble of reality unconnected to anything else. Within this bubble he creates a being that is all powerful and all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble, so this being is free to create anything he wants; Universes, multiverses, heaven, hell, etc. We’ll call this being God 2. But God decides that he will conceal all knowledge of himself or anything outside of this bubble from God 2. As far as God 2 knows, this bubble is reality, nothing outside of it exists.

Question: if you pray, how does the God you pray to know that he is not God 2?
This is not a question of solipsism, but more of a re-presentation of infinite regression. It entirely depends on the assumption of your supposition--a supposition which is not informed enough to declare "God cannot solve solipsism."

Case in point: suppose God 2 is only a remnant and allows God prime to believe he created it. And it's actually God prime that's encased in a bubble created by God 2 outside the bubble?

Do you see how absurd your line of reasoning is?

#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Perhaps he was wearing a hood.
Topic's author
#8
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Case in point: suppose God 2 is only a remnant and allows God prime to believe he created it. And it's actually God prime that's encased in a bubble created by God 2 outside the bubble? 

Do you see how absurd your line of reasoning is?
Absurd? All you did was reiterate the point of this thread, that God himself cannot solve this problem.

Theists often appeal to God as the solution to this, I’m just demonstrating why that is flawed.

Topic's author
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
So, what?
Does the title of this thread accurately describe a fact about the God you believe in?
#10
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
No, not even close
#11
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Absurd?
Yes, absurd.

All you did was reiterate the point of this thread, that God himself cannot solve this problem.
It's not a "problem." It's a contrivance.

Theists often appeal to God as the solution to this, I’m just demonstrating why that is flawed.
The only solution to an absurdity is to reconsider the premises which extended the absurd conclusion. And in order to do that, you have to remove your contrivance.


#12
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Cant' think of anything there is one of in nature.  The idea of one God seems like crap to me for that reason. Though I do think there is a great life force or spirit that facilitates creation but it has no control over that creation. The  laws of nature take over once the energy is put out there. It's not manipulating anything. Gods are a product of evolution same as us. 
Topic's author
#13
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
Does the title of this thread accurately describe a fact about the God you believe in? 
No, not even close
You plan on telling us what you take issue with?
Topic's author
#14
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
It's not a "problem." It's a contrivance.
First off, can you clarify? Are you sure you’re using the right word?

Second, if it’s not a problem then why in philosophy is it referred to as “the problem of hard solipsism”?
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You plan on telling us what you take issue with?
That was perfectly clear. Nothing about the topic describes the God I know exists. The terms "God" and "cannot," let alone associating the first with "solipsism" are not logical constructs. "Cannot" does not apply to God, at all, St. Augustine's own solipsistic syllogism not withstanding.

To your "central tenets" I reply: Why do you think God's alleged three omni... characteristics imply that he must use them to his fullest extent omnichronologically? As I have inquired to others, who never reply, by the way, do you use all the power you possess omnichronologically [all the time]" No, you do not. Why impose that limitation on God? He acts according to the need. If he acted truly omni-whatever, no one would have survived the flood, including Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark. Or not just Sodom & Gomorrah would have been burned to a cinder. Ir just the Egyptians when all the firstborn were slain. He is selective in the use of his power. He could be otherwise, but that would take the third greatest gift after life and the atonement of Christ: free agency. Consider that even the selective death applied in those three situations, those people were punished merely with the end of their mortal lives rather than let them, by their choice, completely and irredeemably obliterate their eternal lives for the poor choice of excessive disobedience. He spared then that.
#16
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
First off, can you clarify? Are you sure you’re using the right word?'
Am I "using the right word"? Hello, I go by the pseudonym, Athias. Have we met?

b: an artificial arrangement or development
You then start your argument like this:

Let’s imagine the following
And then you proceed to argue an issue of infinite regression--i.e. being encased by a God prime--and not one of solipsism. Because solipsism doesn't presume a metaphysically "objective" material reality. That is if "God 2" is incapable of knowing that he was created by a God prime, then "God 2" doesn't know that he doesn't know. Therefore the issue you raise about his not knowing is completely irrational since those encased within the Reality of "God 2," including "God 2" wouldn't question his being God.

Go ahead and try. Ask a question about something you don't know you don't know.

Second, if it’s not a problem then why in philosophy is it referred to as “the problem of hard solipsism”?
Because solipsism isn't falsifiable. And this is a concern typically proposed by materialists.

Topic's author
#17
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Therefore the issue you raise about his not knowing is completely irrational since those encased within the Reality of "God 2," including "God 2" wouldn't question his being God.
There is nothing irrational about it. Whether it matters is an entirely different question, and one which is not the subject of this thread.

I still fail to understand what you take issue with. The point of this question is twofold; to theists who use God as the solution to this (usually prepositionalists) I’m demonstrating that it’s not a solution at all. And more importantly, when theists claim God is all knowing, I’m demonstrating how that’s not even possible because there is no way for God to know that there isn’t some higher God above him who has concealed himself.

If you don’t think the topic is worthy of discussion you don’t have to partake in it. Or, if you think there is a flaw in my logic you are welcome to point it out.

Because solipsism isn't falsifiable. And this is a concern typically proposed by materialists.
That has nothing to do with whether solipsism is a problem. The fact that there is no way for us to know for certain whether the reality we experience including the people we love and care about are actually real is considered a problem to most. The fact that it is unfalsifiable or that it is brought up typically by a certain group of people is irrelevant to that.
Topic's author
#18
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
That was perfectly clear. Nothing about the topic describes the God I know exists. The terms "God" and "cannot," let alone associating the first with "solipsism" are not logical constructs. "Cannot" does not apply to God, at all
I understand that this is what you believe, I’m trying to understand why.

Is God capable of creating the “bubble” I described?

Is God capable of creating the being I described?

Is God capable of concealing himself from this being?

If yes to all 3, then *how* would this being be any different from its own perspective from the God you pray to?

And if there is no difference, then *how* does God know that no such external reality created by a higher God exists?
#19
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
There is nothing irrational about it. Whether it matters is an entirely different question, and one which is not the subject of this thread.
Yes, it is irrational. Because a God that "exists" outside their capacity to perceive is irrational. They don't know that they don't know; and they can never know that they don't know. Yes, it doesn't matter, but it's also irrational.

I still fail to understand what you take issue with. The point of this question is twofold; to theists who use God as the solution to this
How can Theist use God as a solution to this when you just "imagined" it.

(usually prepositionalists)
You mean to say "presuppositionalists"; prepositionalists at best may concern themselves with the use of prepositions.

I’m demonstrating that it’s not a solution at all.
You are demonstrating a negation to your own proposition.

And more importantly, when theists claim God is all knowing, I’m demonstrating how that’s not even possible because there is no way for God to know that there isn’t some higher God above him who has concealed himself.
This is irrational. First, if God presumes to be "all-knowing" then are no unknowns as it concerns him. That makes your assertion that he doesn't know that he's encased in a Bubble by some other God invalid. You're using an assumption of an unsubstantiated possibility that a metaphysically objective God prime may exist outside the knowledge of an all-knowing God. This doesn't demonstrate anything other than your extending conclusions without substantiating your premises.

If you don’t think the topic is worthy of discussion you don’t have to partake in it.
I'm well aware of my prerogative.

Or, if you think there is a flaw in my logic you are welcome to point it out.
I have pointed it out.

That has nothing to do with whether solipsism is a problem. The fact that there is no way for us to know for certain whether the reality we experience including the people we love and care about are actually real is considered a problem to most. The fact that it is unfalsifiable or that it is brought up typically by a certain group of people is irrelevant to that.
The irony in your statement is that it reflects the concern of the very materialists whom you deem irrelevant. The solipsist sees no distinction between the mind and reality. So why would this create a "problem?" The fact that you "can't know" whether the reality you experience including the people you love and care about are "actually real" informs the materialist claim that Solipsism isn't falsifiable. Because materialists presume to rationalize that which lies outside the mind, whereas the solipsist maintains that which lies outside the mind is irrational. And they're right. One would would have to control for one's mind, and rationalize an experience independent of any thought. That's means no science, math, language, logic or reason, cognition or distinguishable sensation. 
#20
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
@fauxlaw
@Double_R
I have a solution.

Is God capable of creating the “bubble” I described?

Is God capable of creating the being I described?

Is God capable of concealing himself from this being?
OBJECTION: These three assumptions of yours are logically exclusive. If God 2 is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then he can't be concealed or controlled by God.


Explanation:
You are working on the assumption that God can break the law of logic. You are working on the assumption that A =/= A, that God 2 is omniscient but still doesn't know God. You cannot possibly do this. If God 2 was truly an exact copy of God then he would just as much be in control of reality. If God 2 isn't a perfect copy of God then your argument doesn't change anything. God 2 being less powerful than God would ultimately make him no different from us humans in this philosophical debate. We can change our reality, even create our own realities (simulations) -- we could call ourselves God 2. But that destroys the point of your argument.

It isn't that God cannot create God 2. It is that your description of God 2 is logically contradictory, and thus describes nothing specific.
Topic's author
#21
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Yes, it is irrational. Because a God that "exists" outside their capacity to perceive is irrational.
This is a complete strawman

You're using an assumption of an unsubstantiated possibility that a metaphysically objective God prime may exist outside the knowledge of an all-knowing God.
No, I’m not. I never claimed God 2 was all knowing. In fact the entire point is that an all knowing God is not possible, because even if there is a God prime there is no way for him to know that he is God prime.

The irony in your statement is that it reflects the concern of the very materialists whom you deem irrelevant.
It seems clear at this point that you really aren’t paying attention. I never deemed anyone irrelevant. Please read my statement again.

Topic's author
#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
You are working on the assumption that A =/= A, that God 2 is omniscient but still doesn't know God.
No, I’m not. My whole point is that Omniscience is incoherent. God cannot possibly know that he is not God 2, so this trait cannot be substantiated.

#23
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
God CAN know that he is not God 2 -- because God 2 is logically contradictory. You can't use a logical contradiction to make any conclusions.
#24
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Double_R
Nothing can solve soft solipsism on an individual level.

No knowledge or belief about the universe can be sustained unless we first take it at face value that SOME STUFF exists. 

We cannot independently verify that SOME STUFF exists without comparing it with ANOTHER MIND which is a subset of the SOME STUFF that we are trying to verify. 

Indeed we are merely brains in jars. Jars known as skulls... if SOME STUFF is real.
#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
If God 2 is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent
I find this to be flawed reasoning. How can god2 be certain that god2 is omniscient rather than simply believing that god2 is omniscient? Indeed true omniscience is made logically incoherent by the double slit experiment regardless of ones personal takeaway. If observing a wave function forces it to collapse into a particle and everything down to the smallest interactions are being observed by some god(s) then we would not eexpect to see wave function in particles at all. We do however see them. 
#26
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
We'd be in agreement - the only way to take solipsism is on a reasonable axiom
#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You mistake capability with purpose. It is not in his purpose to make such a bubble, being, or to conceal himself. I contend that God created us with the express purpose to have agency unto ourselves, because he has the same agency, and acts by it with perfection. We do not, yet, but we're on a growing and improving journey, if we choose to do so. of course, some deny it and do not. It is as I asked by the question about God's omni- characteristics, and it compares to our own approach to some things. We ask ourselves the question: Just because we can, does it mean we should? God imposes the same question on himself.  He has these omni- characteristics, but he is not compelled to use that with full force unless he wills it; just as we do. As I said, we are on a journey. God, himself, has been on such a journey, and is further along the path than we are. But what does that say of us, and our eventual destination? Think it through; it's not as difficult as you think. Where are we going, by our own choices to succeed, or not. Yes, we make very distinct and critical choices of eternal progression, until... what do you think? And then do we stop progressing, or is God, himself, still in progress, as well?
#28
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
This is a complete strawman
No, it's not. The issue you raise at the end of your scenario is whether if one prays, how does the God to whom one prays know he isn't the second God? If this second God is all knowing with respect to his reality, then anything outside that reality is irrational. You're presuming a metaphysically objective state of being.

No, I’m not. I never claimed God 2 was all knowing.
Yes, you did. I'll quote you.

First, you stipulated:

While definitions of God vary, some of its central [tenets] are that he is all knowing, all powerful and creator of everything.
Then as it pertained particularly to God 2, you stated:

God creates a bubble of reality unconnected to anything else. Within this bubble he creates a being that is all powerful and all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble, so this being is free to create anything he wants
So as you see, you did state that God 2 was "all knowing" even if it's with respect to his own "bubble."

In fact the entire point is that an all knowing God is not possible, because even if there is a God prime there is no way for him to know that he is God prime.
Once again, you're presuming metaphyiscal objectivity, which is irrational. There's no knowledge one can ascertain for which one is not the subject. In layman's, your proposition presumes that God can know that which can't be known, which are unknown-unknowns or unknown-can't-be-knowns; and those are irrational. "Everything" falls within the realm of the known, and the "Can't-be-knowns" or "Unknown-unknowns" neither fall within the realm of the known, nor the realm of that which can be rationalized because if they were capable of being known or rationalized they would cease to be unknowns and can't-be-knowns.

Your argument is absurd. You're arguing that there's a possibility--a possibility that is informed by nothing more than metaphysical nonsense--that God is encased within a bubble of which he can know nothing outside. And because of this "possibility" God therefore can't know everything. You haven't substantiated your premise at all, and yet you're extending this conclusion. You self admittedly "imagined" your premise.
Topic's author
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
So as you see, you did state that God 2 was "all knowing" even if it's with respect to his own "bubble."
That is not the definition of all knowing. Omniscience does not mean all knowing, except for anything outside of this one specific bubble. 

In layman's, your proposition presumes that God can know that which can't be known, which are unknown-unknowns or unknown-can't-be-knowns; and those are irrational.
The entire point of this thread is to demonstrate the opposite of what you are claiming I’m am presuming. What in earth are you talking about?

I don’t even believe in a God. I’m an atheist, so why would I presume God can know that which is unknowable? And how many times have I stated that the entire point here is that the omniscience quality that theists normally ascribe to a God is not possible?

You're arguing that there's a possibility--a possibility that is informed by nothing more than metaphysical nonsense--that God is encased within a bubble of which he can know nothing outside. And because of this "possibility" God therefore can't know everything. You haven't substantiated your premise at all, and yet you're extending this conclusion. You self admittedly "imagined" your premise.
The demonstration that it is possible, is that there is no logical contradiction in the scenario I laid out. If you think there is, please enlighten me.
Topic's author
#30
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
God CAN know that he is not God 2 -- because God 2 is logically contradictory. You can't use a logical contradiction to make any conclusions.
Please explain how God 2 is logically contradictory.