From Solipsism to God

[lelinator]

It’s simply the fact that what your thoughts are doing cannot happen without change. It’s impossible, because it is self-evidently a process.

But to me that leaves you with a conundrum, because you’re left with a seeming contradiction… something which can’t change, must give rise to something that can’t help but change. Reality has at least two constants, it exists, and it changes. If we’re going to attribute one of those constants to the necessary cause, then it seems logical to me that we should attribute both of them to the necessary cause. It exists, and it changes.

But the idea that it changes doesn’t imply that its essence changes, nor that its changed by something external to itself. It may simply be that existence and change go hand in hand. And where you have one, you will inevitably have the other. I know that I certainly can’t have one without the other, so perhaps what’s true of me, is true of my cause as well.

 

[IWantGod]

something which can’t change, must give rise to something that can’t help but change.

No, it must give rise to something which doesn’t necessarily exist. That which doesn’t necessarily exist does not exist according to the power of it’s own nature since it is not it’s nature to exist. If it was it’s nature to exist it would necessarily exist, which it does not. It has a limited existence and that is why it is able to change because it’s nature is continually becoming or being actualised from potential to act.

 

[Babaganoush]

I don’t think there is a rational argument against solipsism because everything can be reasoned away. I think the best argument comes from experience. It’s hard to be a solipsist when you spend your day digging ditches or some other physical labor. You feel the pain of life and all the other feelings of life. When you feel what it is to be alive, it is hard to deny that it exists. It becomes much easier when you spend your time in intellectual pursuits.

 

[IWantGod]

But the idea that it changes doesn’t imply that its essence changes, nor that its changed by something external to itself. It may simply be that existence and change go hand in hand. And where you have one, you will inevitably have the other. I know that I certainly can’t have one without the other, so perhaps what’s true of me, is true of my cause as well.

We are left with a contradiction if the foundation of all possibilities is itself a sequence of actualised potential, because that would mean that its actuality is never existentially necessary since it’s act is always an actualised potential and not a necessary act of reality in virtue of it’s potency/act composition. That’s why we say that the uncaused cause is pure-actuality since nothing that is true of it’s nature is unnecessary or potential.

Also we know in principle that a nature which is a necessary act of reality is not potentially anything more, whether that be potential states, potential quantities, potential qualities, potential powers or potential natures. It has no potential existence in it’s nature because if there where it would not be a necessary act of reality which contradicts the necessity of it’s existence.

Also the following…

That which is fundamental to all possibilities has the fullness of it’s own reality quite simply because it is the source of all other realities. It cannot be said to be limited or lacking anything true to what it is. Therefore it cannot be said that it is potentially anything other than what it already is - forever unchanging.

 

[IWantGod]

But the idea that it changes doesn’t imply that its essence changes

If it’s moving from potential to actuality then it is not a neccesary act of existence and therefore cannot rationally be considered the uncaused-cause.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t think there is a rational argument against solipsism

I don’t think it’s possible to prove that the object of our mind has an extension. But i do think you can still argue for God’s existence based on self-evident facts like change even if we begin with the solipsistic idea that we cannot know if the direct objects of our mind’s exist.

 

[lelinator]

If it’s moving from potential to actuality then it is not a neccesary act of existence

I realize that we’ve been over this many times, but that assertion makes absolutely no sense to me. How can you possibly claim that simply because something changes, it’s existence isn’t necessary? I can accept the possibility that its existence isn’t necessary, but I don’t see any way to definitively demonstrate that it’s existence isn’t necessary.

Certain things, by their very nature give rise to other things. If I drop a stone in a pond it’s naturally going to give rise to waves. It’s just a consequence of the nature of ponds and stones.

So how can you demonstrate that the nature of the first cause isn’t such that it will necessarily give rise to everything else?

The only way that I can give any credence to your assertion that some things aren’t necessary, is via semantics. Specifically, even if it’s true that the first cause necessarily gives rise to everything else, the existence of “everything else” is still contingent upon the existence of the first cause. Therefore “everything else’s” existence isn’t, in and of itself…necessary.

But as you’ve also argued, the existence of the first cause is necessary. It can’t possibly not exist. But it follows from that, that if the first cause necessarily exists, and the first cause necessarily gives rise to everything else, then everything else must necessarily exist as well.

Now included in everything else is consciousness, and a necessary attribute of consciousness may be change.

Thus it follows, that if the first cause necessarily exists, and the first cause necessarily gives rise to everything else, and everything else necessarily includes consciousness, and consciousness necessarily includes change…then change is necessary.

Now you’re welcome to try, but I don’t see any way to definitively disprove this argument. It may be possible to argue that the first cause doesn’t necessarily give rise to everything else. In which case the rest of the argument falls apart. But…I don’t see any way to prove that the first cause doesn’t necessarily give rise to everything else.

And that’s why your assertion that anything that changes isn’t necessary doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Richca]

IWantGod:

If it’s moving from potential to actuality then it is not a neccesary act of existence

I realize that we’ve been over this many times, but that assertion makes absolutely no sense to me. How can you possibly claim that simply because something changes, it’s existence isn’t necessary? I can accept the possibility that its existence isn’t necessary, but I don’t see any way to definitively demonstrate that it’s existence isn’t necessary.

A being whose existence is necessary such as the first being and who is purely actual such as God, doesn’t change. The first being, God, is Being and Existence itself, possesses the fullness of being and existence. A being that is changing is not being or existence itself or it wouldn’t be changing and it is also a composition of potency and act. Only the first being, God, is pure act. Also, a potency doesn’t change itself but is changed by something in act other than itself and we can’t regress to an infinity of moved movers or nothing would be changing which is contrary to our experience of the world but must arrive at that which is purely actual, the first unmoved mover and the source of all change.

 

[IWantGod]

If it’s moving from potential to actuality then it is not a neccesary act of existence

That which is necessarily real, cannot not be real, cannot not exist, cannot in anyway be potentially actualised without contradicting the necessity of it’s reality. You change, and therefore you have potentially real states of reality (even if your colour or shape or size or form never changes), and so you are comprised of actualised potential. You are not a necessary act of reality, you are becoming.

If a things act of existence is necessary, you cannot say that it’s being or nature is in any way comprised of potentially real parts. If you necessarily exist then it would be an error to say that your act of existence is an actualised potential. That which is changing is a sequence of actualised potential; an actualisation of that which was not actual. That which is only potential is not existentially necessary. That which is comprised of actualised potential is not a necessary being because a necessary being is not comprised of actualised potential. Even if you had a being that only had one part of it actualised from potential (change), this still would not be a necessary being.

A necessary being, the foundation of all potential reality, has the fullness of its own reality. Everything that it is is fully and necessarily actual. It lacks nothing that is true of it’s nature; it is not in a state of becoming since this would mean that it’s act of existence is limited.

It’s not an assertion. A necessary being is the complete opposite of a being that is comprised of actualised potential and the truth of this is demonstrated when one has understood what it means to necessarily exist… At the moment you want it both ways, you want a being that is necessarily real while at the same time is comprised of that which is not necessarily real. That is the contradiction.

 

[lelinator]

A being whose existence is necessary such as the first being and who is purely actual such as God, doesn’t change. The first being, God, is Being and Existence itself, possesses the fullness of being and existence. A being that is changing is not being or existence itself or it wouldn’t be changing and it is also a composition of potency and act. Only the first being, God, is pure act. Also, a potency doesn’t change itself but is changed by something in act other than itself and we can’t regress to an infinity of moved movers or nothing would be changing which is contrary to our experience of the world but must arrive at that which is purely actual, the first unmoved mover and the source of all change.

That which is necessarily real, cannot not be real, cannot not exist, cannot in anyway be potentially actualised without contradicting the necessity of it’s reality. You change, and therefore you have potentially real states of reality ( even if your colour or shape or size or form never changes ), and so you are comprised of actualised potential. You are not a necessary act of reality, you are becoming.

If a things act of existence is necessary, you cannot say that it’s being or nature is in any way comprised of potentially real parts. If you necessarily exist then it would be an error to say that your act of existence is an actualised potential. That which is changing is a sequence of actualised potential; an actualisation of that which was not actual . That which is only potential is not existentially necessary. That which is comprised of actualised potential is not a necessary being because a necessary being is not comprised of actualised potential. Even if you had a being that only had one part of it actualised from potential (change), this still would not be a necessary being.
A necessary being, the foundation of all potential reality, has the fullness of its own reality. Everything that it is is fully and necessarily actual. It lacks nothing that is true of it’s nature; it is not in a state of becoming since this would mean that it’s act of existence is limited.

Yup, that’s the assertion that I’ve heard a thousand times, and it still doesn’t make any logical sense to me. I can see how you’ve layered one claim on top of another, but that still doesn’t make it a rational argument.

So let’s begin at the beginning, what makes you think that the first cause can’t change?

 

[IWantGod]

So let’s begin at the beginning, what makes you think that the first cause can’t change?

Okay…

That which is necessarily real, cannot not be real, cannot not exist, cannot in anyway be potentially actualised without contradicting the necessity of it’s reality.

What is the difficulty you are having here?

Perhaps you need a definition of what it means for something to be existentially necessary?
It is a being that cannot possibly be unreal. If something is necessarily real (ontologically necessary - cannot not exist because it is it’s nature to be real) it cannot at the same time be not necessarily real or unrealized in any way.

That which is an actualised potential is not necessarily real. Something unrealized in it’s nature has become real. But that which is necessarily real is never potentially real or unrealized. Thus that which is potentially real can never be placed in the same category as that which is necessarily real because they contradict each-other.

Change involves an actualisation of potential reality and so a being that changes is clearly not an example of that which is a necessary act of reality, because a necessary act of reality is never potentially real.

It’s not an assertion, it follows logically. If a thing is an apple, it cannot at the same time and in the same sense not be an apple. A square is not a circle etc. Accept in this case we are not talking about what is necessarily required for a thing to be an apple or the difference between a circle and a square. We are talking about Existential-Necessity - the difference between a contingent set of realities and a nature that necessarily exists as such that there is no possibility of it not being real or being potentially real.

If you cannot understand this there is not much more we can do to help you.

 

[IWantGod]

what makes you think that the first cause can’t change?

There is another reason that has been pointed out several times on this very thread.

The cause of all potential realities cannot itself lack any reality. The uncaused cause, without creation, is already everything that it can possibly be, because there is no other reality other than itself. It is the absolute antithesis of nothing and cannot get more reality from anywhere else. For it to change would mean that it could possibly be more than what it already is which is impossible because it is already everything it could be.

Change means that there is a limitation in the act of some things reality, it means that it’s nature has an unrealized potential for more reality and it’s nature is continuously becoming realized in-order to continue existing. It is becoming more than it was, whether that be a new nature or a new state of reality. It is always actualizing what it lacks - more reality, and it can only get that from one place - the uncaused cause.

 

[lelinator]

Perhaps you need a definition of what it means for something to be existentially necessary?
It is a being that cannot possibly be unreal . If something is necessarily real ( ontologically necessary - cannot not exist because it is it’s nature to be real ) it cannot at the same time be not necessarily real or unrealized in any way.

That which is an actualised potential is not necessarily real. Something unrealized in it’s nature has become real. But that which is necessarily real is never potentially real or unrealized. Thus that which is potentially real can never be placed in the same category as that which is necessarily real because they contradict each-other.

Okay, let’s begin here. But the first thing that we need to do is to define what “real” is. According to your post, everything would seem to fall into one of three categories. Unreal things. Real things. And Necessarily real things.

Unreal things are things that only possess the potential to be real.
Real things are formerly unreal things which have had that potential actualized.
Necessarily Real things are things which have always been real.

Keeping those three categories in mind, let’s try to determine what’s unreal, what’s real, and what’s necessarily real. (Disregarding for the moment that we have no clear cut definition of what “real” means.)

Looking at the world around me, the only things that I can say with any certainty are real, are my perceptions. And as far as I can know, those perceptions don’t correlate to anything that is itself…real. Which means that the only things that ever change from unreal to real, are my perceptions.

This inevitably leads to the conclusion that the only necessarily real thing…is “me”. “Me” being defined here, as that which is essential to the existence of real things, is always present, and never changes.

Thus, I am necessarily real.

 

[lelinator]

I find it a bit ironic that this thread is titled “From Solipsism to God”. Because it does in fact lead to the conclusion that the solipsist is God. A conclusion that I’m quite sure IWantGod hadn’t intended.

Let’s take a closer look at IWantGod’s argument.

1. I think therefore i am.

This premise is really no different than any of IWantGod’s other arguments for God. You begin with the observation that things exist, and from that observation you conclude that they must have a cause. In other words, at a basic level…I think…therefore God exists. At this point the two arguments, the argument for God, and the argument for solipsism, are identical.

1. I have a continuation of potential thoughts that become actual, therefore i change.

This is where IWantGod makes a crucial, and erroneous assumption. He’s conflating the two concepts…“I think”…and “I am”, as if they’re the same thing, when obviously they’re not. Existing and thinking are two distinct things. It’s conceivable that something could exist without being able to think, but it’s not conceivable that something could think without also existing.

Thus…I think therefore I exist. Thinking is evidence of existence, not existence itself.

1. I have not always had thoughts. Therefore that by which i know myself to exist had a beginning.

The statement, “I have not always had thoughts” assumes that there was a time before I had thoughts. But if there’s no such thing as before I had thoughts, then I have indeed, always had thoughts. It’s likely that existence on its own contains no concept of time, and its only consciousness that has a concept of time.

So having a beginning doesn’t preclude my thoughts from always existing. “Always” simply meaning, for all time. Something that only consciousness has a concept of.

…Continued in the next post…

 

[lelinator]

…continued from previous post…

That which changes does not necessarily exist because it is a sequence of potentially real events or thoughts.

But it’s also an argument of IWantGod’s that God not only exists, but He must be conscious. Both of which concepts are contained in the observation that “I think therefore I am”. So three of IWantGod’s prerequisites for God exist in the solipsist. I exist…I think…and I’m eternal.

But what of IWantGod’s last prerequisite of God, that He doesn’t change. Once again, IWantGod is conflating the fact that I exist, with the fact that I think. They’re two distinct things. The fact that I exist, never, ever, changes. But the fact that I think, means that I must change. I can’t form a thought, without change. But the seemingly contradictory thing is, that I can’t be conscious without thoughts. And thoughts require change. So if God is conscious, then He must have thoughts, and if He has thoughts, then He must change.

The key problem with IWantGod’s conclusion is that it’s based upon an assumption. The assumption that things exist “out there”. Meaning outside of my own mind. So he consequently looks for a cause outside of himself. The solipsist on the other hand, doesn’t begin with that assumption. Thus they’re free to consider the possibility that everything exists…“in here”

 

[IWantGod]

You begin with the observation that things exist,

No, i begin with the observation that i exist which is made evident by the knowledge of my thinking. So without assuming anything, my knowing and thinking is a knowable part of my act of existing.

and from that observation you conclude that they must have a cause.

I didn’t make that argument at all.

He’s conflating the two concepts…“ I think ”…and “ I am ”,

I’m not conflating at all. In general i have no reason to make a distinction between my self knowledge, the power of thinking, and the act of my existing. My thinking and self-knowledge is an act of my existing. My nature and what it is doing is an expression of my existence. My nature exists. It’s what i am that gives me reason to say i exist. It is the act of my nature that allows me to say that i exist. Otherwise using the word “exist” without reference to my nature and what it is doing is meaningless.

My thinking and knowledge changes, and so to it necessarily follows that something has changed in my act of existing, even if i am actually more than my thinking and knowing.

However, the fact that my thinking changes, which is self evident, shows that i move from potential to act, which undeniable. A necessary act of reality does not do that. Therefore my existence has been given to me since i do not exist necessarily.

It’s conceivable that something could exist without being able to think

Then the power of thinking is not a part of it’s nature, potentially or otherwise.

The statement, “ I have not always had thoughts ” assumes that there was a time before I had thoughts.

I have explained this before and you have now made it evident to me and everybody reading that you do not have good intentions. But in case you have just forgotten, what i meant is that you do not have an infinite regress of thinking and self knowledge. Your knowledge is not infinite, and hasn’t been forever.

In any case if you admit that your knowledge and process of thinking has a beginning, then you have a serious problem, and it is one that completely undermines any delusion that you are God.

 

[Richca]

…continued from previous post…

The key problem with IWantGod’s conclusion is that it’s based upon an assumption. The assumption that things exist “out there”. Meaning outside of my own mind. So he consequently looks for a cause outside of himself. The solipsist on the other hand, doesn’t begin with that assumption. Thus they’re free to consider the possibility that everything exists…“in here”

In my opinion, it is an absurd assumption or notion that the things that actually exist outside of ourselves, that we can see with our own eyes in the world around us, don’t exist. It is self evident and common sense that they do exist. A philosophy built on the solipsist idea is wrong from the start, an edifice built on sand, absurd, uncommon sensical, and unreal. On the other hand, philosophers such as Aristotle and Aquinas were common sensical and took the external world around us as existing as a self evident brute fact, the denial of which they would have considered absurd. Personally, I’ll stay in the camp that the trees I’m looking at right now outside my window actually exist.

Contrary to Rene Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am,’ I believe Aquinas would say ‘I am therefore I think’. One must exist before they can think. A person doesn’t think before they exist.

 

[lelinator]

In my opinion, it is an absurd assumption or notion that the things that actually exist outside of ourselves, that we can see with our own eyes in the world around us, don’t exist. It is self evident and common sense that they do exist.

Who said that they don’t exist?

The question is, do they exist “out there”? Meaning outside of my conscious awareness of them. Or do they only exist “in here”? Meaning only within my conscious awareness.

The fact that you find that to be absurd only reflects upon your ability to consider things outside of you preconceptions. It has no bearing at all on whether or not it’s true.

You really only have three choices for the source of reality.

1. The material world is necessary, and it gives rise to consciousness.
2. Consciousness is necessary, and it gives rise to the material world.
3. There is another cause, who’s nature is unknown, which creates both the material world, and consciousness, and then somehow combines the two together into a hybrid reality.

Those, or some variation thereof, would seem to be your only three choices. Of those three, the most likely would be number two.

Why? Because we have no idea how a physical reality can give rise to consciousness. But experience alone tells us that consciousness can give rise to, at least the illusion of a physical reality, and there’s no way to tell if reality is anything more than an illusion. Thus we know that consciousness has the potential to give rise to reality.

And as for number three, it is by far the least likely, because it requires the greatest number of assumptions. Not the least of which is the existence of a cause for which we have no direct evidence. It’s basically just making up a cause out of whole cloth.

Contrary to Rene Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am,’ I believe Aquinas would say ‘I am therefore I think’. One must exist before they can think. A person doesn’t think before they exist.

Hence, the logical conclusion is that consciousness and thinking are two attributes of the same thing.

That which is conscious/exists…thinks. That which thinks…exists. You can’t separate the two. Existence requires consciousness, and consciousness requires thinking.