F
fhansen
Guest
Do you know how to create all you see? Could you reproduce its creation? The answer is just simple and practical as the question.
- Status
S
sonofbarry
Guest
Solipsism is a complex philosophical field, one that I have been very interested in.
Everything is a product of your mind and your awareness. You exist, you create the universe (including people, gods, the cat – everything) and hold it in existence through the power of your mind.
Surely there is some truth to it.
When you die, you have no further consciousness, effectively --* to you *-- bringing about the end of the universe you imagined just before death. But only to you.
It’s an interesting way of viewing existence and life itself, but I find it a bleak, lonely philosophy.
In answer to the question: you’re probably not “God”, but you certainly have some god-like qualities in creating your own existence.
Everything is a product of your mind and your awareness. You exist, you create the universe (including people, gods, the cat – everything) and hold it in existence through the power of your mind.
Surely there is some truth to it.
When you die, you have no further consciousness, effectively --* to you *-- bringing about the end of the universe you imagined just before death. But only to you.
It’s an interesting way of viewing existence and life itself, but I find it a bleak, lonely philosophy.
In answer to the question: you’re probably not “God”, but you certainly have some god-like qualities in creating your own existence.
O
o_mlly
Guest
No. You are the discoverer of all that you see.
A
ANV
Guest
No? You’re just a human, creating some things in your life doesn’t make you a god, you have no full control over your life, and any changing circumstances can destroy you, most things done to you were not by your own choice, including the basis of your birth, when, where and how you were born, it’s a little we choose.
P
peter26
Guest
If you think you are God, start with the “checklist” in Job, starting at Chapter 38 and see how many of the “criteria” you meet. Here’s the first one for you
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (verse 4).
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (verse 4).
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Reduced to its simplest form the question posited by the OP is this…how can I know whether the world around me has an independent objective existence? Could it be that reality is merely an aspect of the conscious mind, and has no independent existence of its own. In which case the conscious mind would effectively be the source of everything…and for all intents and purposes it would be God.
To prove that I’m not God, you must prove that something other than my mind exists, and that’s simply impossible. Therefore the OP’s question…Am I God?..must always remain unanswered. As absurd as it may appear, it’s entirely possible that I am God.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
If the earth exists only within my mind, then its foundations were laid by me. I marked out its dimensions, and I laid its cornerstone. As far as I can ever know, I am the creator of everything, and not even the God of Abraham can change that.
It’s impossible for you to know if anything other than your mind exists…and that includes the God of Abraham.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Kantian error. Common sense, the integration of our five senses, tells us the world outside our mind is objective, not subjective. Kant’s error taken to the extreme is nonsense. Pardon the pun.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
i am so tempted to do Monty Python here…
but
there is only One God. We are His creatures. So you op, are God’s creature, just as I am.
but
there is only One God. We are His creatures. So you op, are God’s creature, just as I am.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Common sense is often perverted by preconceptions. For example, there was a time when it was deemed common sense that the sun revolved around the earth. But as we understand it now, the exact opposite is true. How do I know that the same misconception doesn’t hold true in this case? That it’s not the physical world that creates the mind, but the mind that creates the physical world. For the Catholic this question is even more problematic, because the Catholic believes that it’s impossible for the physical world, no matter how intricately formed, to create the conscious mind. The conscious mind must to some degree at least, have an existence independent of the physical world that it’s supposedly perceiving. It’s not that great of leap therefore, to imagine that that independent mind isn’t just perceiving the physical world, but actually creating it.
The point of the OP is that due to the egocentric predicament one can never be certain that anything outside of oneself actually exists, and that includes God.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
But the question is, how do you know that this is true? Even if you should one day die and stand before God in heaven, you wouldn’t know if it was God sustaining your existence, or you sustaining His.
O
o_mlly
Guest
My apologies to Immanuel. The error perpetuated here is Rene’s.
The flat-earth concept was not directly sensed but concluded in a rational process. The sensed observations, e.g., the horizon and the inability to see objects passing over the horizon, were real and still are real today. The flat-earthers, attempting to rationalize these correct observations of reality, concluded, not observed, that the earth was flat.
The natural senses cannot perceive the supernatural. God is an intellection, not a perception. We should separate the two, perceptions and intellection, as experiences emanating from entirely different sources of knowledge.
The sensible world, or the perceptible world is evident and our knowledge of the physical reality in the objects we perceive is quite certain. Mortimer Adler describes Descartes error as well as any modern day philosopher:
*
Another whole class of truths for which certitude may be claimed consists of those called evident, rather than self-evident. I do not, as Descartes thought, have to infer my existence from the fact that I am aware of myself thinking. I perceive it directly, just as I perceive directly the existence of all the physical objects that surround me. If there is any doubt at all about the truth of such judgments, it is the merest shadow of doubt about whether I am suffering a hallucination rather than actually perceiving.
When I am perceiving, not hallucinating, there can be no doubt that the objects I am perceiving actually exist. Such judgments have a semblance of certitude that falls short of complete certitude only to the extent that a shadow of doubt remains concerning the normality of my perceptual processes.*
If we both perceive the same physical reality then we are either sharing the same hallucination (highly unlikely) or the perceptions are quite real.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
How does Adler propose that we differentiate between the two? Is there something other than one’s own personal feelings by which one can definitively prove that one is real, and the other is an illusion? Without such definitive proof, how can he be so certain that the world around him is objectively real? How does he know that it’s the world that created me, and not I who created it?
Yes, there can and should be doubt. The way to determine what’s true, is to question what you already believe to be true. Otherwise your conclusions are preordained by your assumptions.
No matter how certain one is that their assumptions are right, they shouldn’t simply disregard the possibility that they might be wrong. So tell me…how do you know that the world around you is real? You’re certain that it is…but why?
You’re assuming that you’re separate from the illusion, and not merely part of the illusion. There’s no reason to think that the illusion should be internally inconsistent. In fact the opposite is true, if the illusion is to be coherent, and the mind perceiving it coherent, then one part of the illusion should be consistent with every other part of the illusion. What you see, should be consistent with what I see. Thus the consistency of your observations with mine is no indication of the objectivity of those observations.
Since we can’t perceptually determine whether or not reality is an illusion, we must look for intellectual evidence as to its nature. Does it act like an illusion? The argument could be made, that indeed it does. In fact, it could be argued that reality looks more like something that I would create, than something that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would create. If we’re judging by the way it acts, then reality is more likely to have been created by me, than to have been created by God.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Adler sees no point in discussing anything with the extreme skeptic and I agree.
****What is the answer to the skeptic who claims that the effort to get at the truth is always in vain? …
The person who maintains that he knows nothing because nothing is knowable, or who declares that no statement can be either true or false, interdicts himself from telling lies. His extreme skepticism removes him from the ordinary world in which most of us live and in which, according to him, we live under the illusion that we can discriminate between statements that are true and statements that are false. …
The definition of truth involves an erroneous presupposition, the skeptic charges. Does not his use of the word “erroneously” trip him up? Has he not contradicted himself by saying, on the one hand, that nothing is either true or false and yet saying, on the other hand, that the presupposition involved in the definition of truth is an erroneous presupposition or, in other words, false?
We are verging here on an age-old reply to the extreme skeptic that dismisses him as refuting himself. One cannot say that no statements are true or false, or that there is no such thing as truth in the sense defined, without contradicting oneself. If the statement that expresses the skeptic’s view about truth is one that he himself regards as true, then at least one statement is true. If it is false, then it is quite possible for many other statements to be either true or false. If the statement that expresses the skeptic’s view is neither true nor false, then why should we pay any attention to what he says?
Either he has contradicted himself or he has impelled us to discontinue any further conversation with him on the grounds that it can lead nowhere. There is no point in talking to someone who is willing to answer any question by saying both yes and no at the same time. Since the extreme skeptic does not acknowledge the restraint imposed by the rule of reason that we ought not to contradict ourselves if we can avoid doing so, our refutation of him by appealing to that rule does not silence him. He has no objection to being unreasonable. We may have refuted him to our own satisfaction, but that does not carry with it an acknowledgment by him that he has been refuted and should abandon his skepticism. The only consequence that follows from our regarding his view as self-contradictory and therefore self-refuting is the judgment we may be forced to make that there is no point in carrying on the conversation with him any further.
The commonsense view is the one that all of us embrace when we reject the self-contradictory and self-refuting position of the extreme skeptic as being not only unreasonable, but also impracticable. ****
C
Clevus
Guest
No a user, all the base elements of this earth were here before us. They form to make clay or wood or us. These are used by us to create objects. We received a gift, and we create something for God and to help complete the temporary mission he assigned us which is charity to his people and nature. Everything we do is for the love of God, and so what we formulate in our minds with the use of created neurons,blood,plasma,brain tissue,etc is also a gift to God. He knows what we think. With these elements we become aware and have faculties and intuition. This is so we can know that it is God who gave it to us.
It also helps us by protecting us, so that we are careful to know our place has created beings. There are influences that would have us spend a lot of time considering things that we shouldn’t. Some things we think about may call on us to consider us to be less charitable to God. In this case we are fortunate that we can snap ourselves back to the present and occupy ourselves to the charity of his created beings who desire our help.
Greater temptations need simple seeds of suggestion. They present as innocent and innocuous, and we seek a free corner in our mind to play out one’s private fantasy. The thing that proposes the liberty, must first create a kink in the conscience of protection. Sometimes being attacked is charity, what we give to others. Sever the tie of charity to God, and we for all intents and purposes become the created raw material that can only have use in places other than heaven and earth.
It also helps us by protecting us, so that we are careful to know our place has created beings. There are influences that would have us spend a lot of time considering things that we shouldn’t. Some things we think about may call on us to consider us to be less charitable to God. In this case we are fortunate that we can snap ourselves back to the present and occupy ourselves to the charity of his created beings who desire our help.
Greater temptations need simple seeds of suggestion. They present as innocent and innocuous, and we seek a free corner in our mind to play out one’s private fantasy. The thing that proposes the liberty, must first create a kink in the conscience of protection. Sometimes being attacked is charity, what we give to others. Sever the tie of charity to God, and we for all intents and purposes become the created raw material that can only have use in places other than heaven and earth.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
How do I know God exists and I am His creature? Faith. I am a believer. I know.
God sustains me.
This is what our Priest said in Homily yesterday…
We exist to do the Will of God. Nothing more, nothing less.
Amen.
Seek God. Then you will know.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
I don’t know the context in which Mr. Adler made this statement, but it certainly doesn’t apply as far as the OP is concerned, because the OP’s position isn’t one of extreme skepticism. It may appear to be so at first glance, but it’s not. The OP doesn’t imply that nothing can be known to be true. It doesn’t imply for example that you and I aren’t having this discussion, because we certainly are. The OP questions the discussions ultimate source, but not its existence. The OP questions reality’s nature, but not its existence.
Therefore there are a great many things that I can know to be true. I know that if you kick me I feel pain. I know that if I drop an apple it falls. I know that the world is full of cruelty, and injustice, and hope, and love. I know these things, because they’re part of the experiences that make up what I am. They’re just as real as I am, because they’re the very things that give context to what I am. So the OP doesn’t question everything, it only questions one thing, is the world objectively real. Does it physically exist, or is it only an illusion?
The inevitable answer is…that it may very well be an illusion. The question that we have to ask ourselves, is how would we know the difference? How would we know if the world was created by God, or by the serendipitous laws of nature, or by the idiosyncrasies of the conscious mind?
That’s the question that the OP is asking.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The comment was not directed to the OP but to your posts. In your last post above, you contradict your previous posts on the mind’s inability to recognize reality from illusion.
I know that if you kick me I feel pain. One can only know pain through the sense of touch delivered through one’s nervous system to one’s brain. How do you know that your pain is real given your belief that the senses are unreliable in determining illusion from reality?
*
I know that if I drop an apple it falls. *Why? Does your sense of sight have a special power in discerning illusions from reality? And my sense of sight does not if I also see the apple drop?
*I know that the world is full of cruelty, and injustice, and hope, and love. I know these things, because they’re part of the experiences that make up what I am. They’re just as real as I am …*It seems, unlike the rest of us, you claim your senses are incapable of illusion. Or perhaps, you were hallucinating when you posted last.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
To wax poetic, faith is the means by which one opens a window unto one’s soul. For through faith men justify the kindest of virtues, and the cruelest of inequities. The fact that you have faith tells me very little. But the manner in which you exhibit that faith tells me a great deal. Not about God, but about you.
What I’m wondering is…do you have the courage to admit that God may not exist? For how you answer that question will tell me whether what you have is faith in God, or pride in yourself. For pride comes from he who believes that he cannot be wrong, and faith comes from he who knows that he can.
G
grannymh
Guest
“Am I God, in the sense that I’m the creator of everything that I see around me?”
from post 1.
This question fascinates me because it leads to the question – What is really human nature? From your world view?
Personally, I like checking Genesis 1:27.
"God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* e created them.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
- Status