Am I God?

[Partinobodycula]

Partinobodycula;14126119:

You’re right, I can’t prove anything. I wonder however, are you willing to admit the same?

My claims are not the issue. You can’t provide any evidence that my claims can’t be proven or that it is a real issue at all. If it was, others would be making the same demands.

No, this suggestion right here of yours is called a “red herring.” It’s a distraction during a forensic debate designed to draw attention away from the main point at issue. It is what is known as a “logical fallacy.” While it may raise plausible issues, in the end they are irrelevant. It is a tactic of diversion.

The real issue is not whether I can prove anything, but that you’ve failed in your claims. Turning the tables can’t work to do anything but make you look like a worse failure and imposter because it shows your desperation.

This introduction of a side issue is saying: “Don’t point at me for failing to prove my issue that I raised. Let’s shine the light at you to turn the attention away from my failure and let’s see if I can sneak away under this type of smoke screen.” Sorry, but not falling for that.

But I will add this. The fact that I can succeed in defending my God is a promised sign of those God blesses to speak His truth. It is written:

“Show me a sign of your favor,
That my foes may see to their shame
That you, O Lord, console me and give me your help.” --Psalm 86:17.

A sign that one comes from God is their speech that cannot be denied. “No one has ever spoken as this man does,” they said of Jesus at John 7:46. And Jesus stated: “Everyone who is sufficiently trained will be like his teacher.”–Luke 6:40.

The “sign” of God’s blessing can be that a speaker is like their teacher Jesus, someone that cannot be fought against. The real proof is the wisdom seen in your speech. Can you see the teacher Jesus in the student who has been trained by him? Does he speak with undeniable wisdom like the Lord? If you really want to be like God, learn from Jesus. Learn to speak like him. I promise you, if you do this, you will have your proof.

So the answer is no, you’re not willing to admit that you might be wrong. Hmmm…and people think that I’m the prideful one. Interesting.

 

[Partinobodycula]

With all due respect, there is no evidence that you are God.

Except for the fact that nothing can be known to exist unless I perceive that it exists. So far as I know, outside of my experience, there’s nothing.

You are experiencing the universe through your own POV

True, but the question is, am I merely experiencing it, or am I creating it? Is it creating me, or am I creating it? Which comes first? At least on this point Catholicism and I are in agreement. Neither one of them comes first.

everyone else is also, even animals.

This may be true, but I can never know that it’s true. Can something be said to be true, if it can never, ever be known to be true?

If you say that you are all that there is, why not saying that someone else is all that there is?

I don’t claim that I’m all that there is, in the sense that you’re implying. I claim that my experiences may be all that there is. There’s a difference. I can’t separate my experiences from myself, for what am I without them? So the two things, myself and my experiences, are one and the same thing. From another person’s point of view, if they have one, then they too are all that there is. And their experiences of me are part of them, just as my experiences of them are a part of me. But neither one of us can ever be certain that there’s anything outside of our own experiences. Our experiences are all that we can ever be certain of.

What if they claim that they are all that there is?

To me, you’re a Catholic, and it doesn’t matter if you’re objectively real or not, you are what I experience you to be, because this is the sum of my understanding of you. But I have no way of knowing if you’re anything more than that, anything more than an experience. And so I accept you for what I experience you to be, for experiences are all that I have. And if someone should claim to be a solipsist then I accept them as well, with the understanding that I can never be certain that they’re anything more than that.

Are you going to believe them?

If they truly understand what they’re saying, then they’ll understand the limitations inherent in such a claim. They’ll accept me with the same grace with which I accept them, and you. I accept you for what I experience you to be, because that’s all that I have.

 

[Partinobodycula]

The act of existence is God, but your nature is not. God is permeating you.

In some sense I agree with this, but I’m not certain that it’s in the manner in which you meant it.

As a solipsist there are three things that I believe can be known to exist:

1. The mind which perceives that “I” exist.
2. The experiences that give context to what “I” am.
3. That which gives rise to the first two.

These are the only things of which I can be certain, and it’s unclear to me that there’s any real distinction between the three.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Are you by chance influenced by French philosopher René Descartes? We know his statement: I think therefore I am.

That’s just a small piece of his argument. That’s not where he stopped.

So, are you a Cartesian or not?

Yes, I have heard of Descartes, but I was a solipsist long before I knew that there was an actual term for it. And as for being a Cartesian, not as far as I know. I’ve never actually read any of his writings, other than “I think, therefore I am”. In fact I’ve never read any philosopher’s writings other than Aquinas’, and some tidbits here and there.

I’m not big on reading, and so I’m limited to what a ninth grade education and an inquisitive mind can conceive.

If that makes me an ignorant buffoon than so be it. I am what I am.

 

[njlisa]

Yes, I have heard of Descartes, but I was a solipsist long before I knew that there was an actual term for it. And as for being a Cartesian, not as far as I know. I’ve never actually read any of his writings, other than “I think, therefore I am”. In fact I’ve never read any philosopher’s writings other than Aquinas’, and some tidbits here and there.

I’m not big on reading, and so I’m limited to what a ninth grade education and an inquisitive mind can conceive.

If that makes me an ignorant buffoon than so be it. I am what I am.

I didn’t insult you at all. I didn’t engage in any name-calling.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I didn’t insult you at all. I didn’t engage in any name-calling.

Forgive me for implying that you did. I was referring to others on this board who no doubt hold to such opinions. You have been nothing but gracious and I appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[MPat]

You need to understand that I’m talking about reality’s “existence” in two different senses of the word. An objective sense, and a subjective sense. To you the world is objective, and concrete, and physical. To me it’s subjective, and abstract, and ethereal. But that doesn’t mean that the world isn’t just as precious and real to me as it is to you, maybe more so. Because to me every child that suffers, suffers because of me. Every pain that’s endured, is endured because of me. The world isn’t “unreal” to me. The world is very “real” to me. I cry because of it, and hope because of it, and love it because of it. I am as much nothing without it, as it is without me.

You want to know what it means to have lived with solipsism for over forty years, well that’s what it means. It means that my world is just as real to me, as yours is to you. But more than that, it means that the only real sinner here, is me. The only one in need of redemption, is me.

Yes, we know. Denying the known truth is often bad for you in more than one way.

So when I speak of those who have come before me, don’t think that I have “slipped up” and forgotten that they’re not “real”. I know very well what I’m saying.

You have failed to notice the actual contradiction. If you have created them, they cannot exist before you.

And no, it is not mere “slipping up”. You cannot really live as if you did not know obvious things.

Because if solipsism is true, then the doubts made manifest in you are merely reflections of the doubts that reside in me. So when I look at you, I see myself. I can’t judge you. I can’t dismiss you. I can only try to change you, or perhaps you can change me. Either way I’m the better for having listened.

And yet, you do not listen. For that is not an answer to the question. It does not even address the question at all.

So, once again - how do you expect to find an answer to the question by denying that you know it, when, in fact, you do know it?

 

[LethalMouse]

So the answer is no, you’re not willing to admit that you might be wrong. Hmmm…and people think that I’m the prideful one. Interesting.

Actually didn’t he say he had been called by name?

You asked if he could PROVE anything to which no.

But now you say he should admit he could be wrong…

The thing is for example I know for a fact that I am not wrong if I say I ate a chicken sandwich for lunch.

I cannot be wrong.

But I also can not prove it.

So anyone who has encountered God can know they are not wrong in assertion that you are not.

However it is doubtful any could prove this to anyone else.

So naturally there is undoubtedly a whoke host of people who can totally know you are not God, but none that can under your general premise “prove it”

I know that what you stated is wrong as well in response to me.

You could refute it and I can not “prove” it to you. But I nonetheless am fully aware I cannot be wrong.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Of course I can’t tell you your name, but all that proves is that I’m not what you imagine God to be. But the very fact that I’m asking the question shows that I don’t really know what God should be, that’s why I’m asking. I’m not asking if I conform to your understanding of God, because obviously I don’t. I’m just trying to figure out what God might be, and reason dictates that God might be me. You and everything else might be nothing more than just the product of my own mind.

The creator of everything, might be me.

I can assure you that you are not the creator of everything. If you were, you wouldn’t be asking that.

No reason does not dictate that God might be you. Actually, the exact opposite.

God is all knowing, all powerful, and all merciful. He knows us before He creates us, He knows everything we have done and everything we will do. We are all created in His image.

If you were God, you wouldn’t have to question it. You would know, just like Jesus did in the Bible. Therefore, you are not, but I knew that before I responded in this thread.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

As far as I know, there’s no such thing as before the time of my birth, in any objective sense. It may be that the world is nothing without me. It may also be that I am nothing without it.

The world will get along just fine without you, me, or anyone else on this board.

God has put us on this Earth for His purpose. Only He knows when the end of our Earthly life will be. To know, love, and serve Him.

 

[drac16]

The difference between what you believe and what the prophets taught is an apostrophe and an s. You are not God – you are God’s. You belong to God. God sent righteous men throughout the course of history and they all taught the same core message, which is that all things belong to God (and that includes you). As it says in surah 112:4 of the Qur’an, there is nothing that is comparable to God, which is to say that He possesses attributes that no one else has.

You have attributes that many people have; for one, you are made of matter. As I said before, you are God’s. You belong to Him and you are dependent upon him. To associate human frailties with Divinity is the highest blasphemy.

 

[Wafflenator]

1. Observation of the world implies separation between you and the world. Asking the question implies separation between you and knowledge. Separation implies a finite nature. God is infinite, his knowledge is infinite, and he does not forget his identity by knowing his creation.

One must wonder if every conscious being must ask the question, where did I come from, even if that conscious being is God.

Our exchange here typifies what happens so often in this kind of conversation. We are using different definitions for God.

Christians believe that God lacks nothing. Lacking nothing, God would not need to ask this question.

This also shows us something about the essence of solipsism. Any god theorized by the solipsist is not the God confessed by Christians.

 

[Partinobodycula]

You have failed to notice the actual contradiction. If you have created them, they cannot exist before you.

There is no contradiction. Believe me, if it was there I would have noticed. “Before” is a term that you use to define the causal order of things. But to me, “before” is a relational term, not a causal term. The bible speaks of the Father’s only begotten Son, does this mean that the Father pre-existed the Son?

You cannot really live as if you did not know obvious things.

What’s obvious to one person isn’t always obvious to another, and people live in denial of the obvious all the time. It’s something that we’re very, very good at.

And yet, you do not listen.

I listen more closely than you might think.

For that is not an answer to the question. It does not even address the question at all.

Sometimes the answers to questions are like the answers to prayers, people mistake not getting the answer they wanted, with getting no answer at all.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Actually didn’t he say he had been called by name?

You asked if he could PROVE anything to which no.

But now you say he should admit he could be wrong…

The thing is for example I know for a fact that I am not wrong if I say I ate a chicken sandwich for lunch.

I cannot be wrong.

But I also can not prove it.

So anyone who has encountered God can know they are not wrong in assertion that you are not.

However it is doubtful any could prove this to anyone else.

So naturally there is undoubtedly a whoke host of people who can totally know you are not God, but none that can under your general premise “prove it”

I know that what you stated is wrong as well in response to me.

You could refute it and I can not “prove” it to you. But I nonetheless am fully aware I cannot be wrong.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know that isn’t so.” The world is full of people who are certain that they’re right. And Christians hold no special significance among them. Amongst people and their Gods, there’s greater novelty in admitting that they might be wrong, than in insisting that they must be right.

 

[Partinobodycula]

God is all knowing, all powerful, and all merciful. He knows us before He creates us, He knows everything we have done and everything we will do. We are all created in His image.

Is that how God really is, or is that simply how men want Him to be?

 

[Partinobodycula]

To associate human frailties with Divinity is the highest blasphemy.

So I’ve been told. But somehow I think that I’m in greater danger from the judgment of men, than I am from the judgment of God.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Is that how God really is, or is that simply how men want Him to be?

That is how God really is, and that is also what is taught in Christianity.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

So I’ve been told. But somehow I think that I’m in greater danger from the judgment of men, than I am from the judgment of God.

Absolutely false. God has the only and final judgment at the end of each of our Earthly lives.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Our exchange here typifies what happens so often in this kind of conversation. We are using different definitions for God.

Indeed we are.

Christians believe that God lacks nothing. Lacking nothing, God would not need to ask this question.

But as you say, our definitions are different. The more important difference being that I’m willing to admit that I might be wrong, and most Christians never will.

This also shows us something about the essence of solipsism. Any god theorized by the solipsist is not the God confessed by Christians.

True, but solipsism isn’t as much about questioning the nature of God, as it is about questioning the nature of ourselves. It’s about questioning what we believe, and why. It’s about accepting that we might be wrong.

 

[Partinobodycula]

To quote Jesus–and John Lennon–“the kingdom of God is within you.”
So…yes!

It’s a funny thing, because I still find myself in what some people might describe as prayer. But I’ve come to realize that I’m not praying to something “out there”, I’m praying to something “in here” .