God's "will" in life vs. random chance

[GodsTheBest]

How can we say anything is God’s “will”?
How do we not know it is just “chance” for the good things that happen in our life?
For example, when people say, “Oh, it was God’s will that such-and-such occurred/did not occur,” how can we believe that? What if it was just a random chance?

 

[SydneyDee]

Hi! “Godsthebest” are you involved in a religion? You asked how we knew if good things were by God’s will or by chance. Faith comes into play here. If you are Christian you believe God’s “will” for good things to happen is His blessings. Alot of Atheists believe things happen by “chance.” I for one do not believe things happen by pure “chance.” I encourage you to read the Bible & look for what is has to say about blessings. I will most certainly pray for your guidance. If you have any questions or are confused on anything else just give me a yell!

 

[Katholish]

How can we say anything is God’s “will”?
How do we not know it is just “chance” for the good things that happen in our life?
For example, when people say, “Oh, it was God’s will that such-and-such occurred/did not occur,” how can we believe that? What if it was just a random chance?

Everything in this world is subject to Divine Providence, and anything that happens is caused by God in the sense that He is its primary cause. In that sense, anything that occurs is God’s will, even “bad” things. Thus, if you look at the lives of the saints, it has happened many times that a very holy person gets a terrible disease. They see it as God’s will to give them an opportunity to become more holy through their suffering.

That being said, there is a manner in which claiming something was God’s will is problematic, and that is when you start to interpret what you think God’s intentions are from events. While you can know that something is part of divine providence, it is usually a form of arrogance to think that you can understand how that event fits into Divine Providence. Thus, people often claim that natural disasters are God’s punishment for some sin or something. While the disaster is surely part of Divine Providence, you really have no idea HOW it is part of Divine Providence unless it has been revealed to you (which often occured in the lives of the saints). As a general rule, God does not reward the just and punish the wicked in this lifetime. On the contrary, the wicked often prosper while the just are seen to undergo many sufferings. Just look at the case of Job.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Everything in this world is subject to Divine Providence, and anything that happens is caused by God in the sense that He is its primary cause. In that sense, anything that occurs is God’s will, even “bad” things. Thus, if you look at the lives of the saints, it has happened many times that a very holy person gets a terrible disease. They see it as God’s will to give them an opportunity to become more holy through their suffering.

That being said, there is a manner in which claiming something was God’s will is problematic, and that is when you start to interpret what you think God’s intentions are from events. While you can know that something is part of divine providence, it is usually a form of arrogance to think that you can understand how that event fits into Divine Providence. Thus, people often claim that natural disasters are God’s punishment for some sin or something. While the disaster is surely part of Divine Providence, you really have no idea HOW it is part of Divine Providence unless it has been revealed to you (which often occured in the lives of the saints). As a general rule, God does not reward the just and punish the wicked in this lifetime. On the contrary, the wicked often prosper while the just are seen to undergo many sufferings. Just look at the case of Job.

 

[Reuben_J]

How can we say anything is God’s “will”?
How do we not know it is just “chance” for the good things that happen in our life?
For example, when people say, “Oh, it was God’s will that such-and-such occurred/did not occur,” how can we believe that? What if it was just a random chance?

We should not say everything that we do or happen as God’s will. Definitely there are things we do or happen that do not conform to the will of God.

However, God knows the things that happen in our lives. Sometimes these may be unfortunate events like misfortune or losses. Lot said naked he came and naked he would go to the Lord. We should take everything that happen to us, the good and the bad, as blessings. The bad usually as prelude for the good things to come for as children of God everything that happen in our lives has a purpose for His greater plan for us.

God bless.

 

[kamalayka9]

In reality, nothing is to big OR too small for GOD.

GOD is just as aware of your thoughts as HE is of two “random” microscopic dust particles colliding into each other 850,000 light years away in space. Nothing is beyond the knowledge of God. Nothing can exist, except for the constant support of God’s Will. NOTHING, not even what would seem to US to be random events, can happen beyond God’s Providence.

TO quote Jesus: “Don’t worry; the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”

and in another place He says, “. . .and yet not one [sparrow] falls from the sky apart from your Father’s Will.”

From our finite perspective, everything “seems” as random, because the idea of being aware and in control of EVERYTHING is beyond our ability to truly understand. The ONLY thing God will not control is our free will!​

Here is something that is truly humbling to think about-the size of the universe.

Some people would ask, “Why would God make suck a large universe if we are the only life?” My answer is this: To give us humility.

Physically, we are little specs of dust, living on a slightly larger speck of dust (earth), orbiting a slightly larger speck (the sun). Our sun is just one of about sixty billion little specs which form a piece of dirt (our galaxy). This small piece of if dirt is just one of an estimated 400 billion pieces of dirt in the known universe.

Looking at our existence from a quantitative perspective, we are about as close to nothing as you can get.

And to think that the Creator of all of this became one of us in the form of His Son Jesus Christ!

The same God that made the entire universe, is the same God that speaks to us on a personal level! And this same God knows you better than you know yourself! And this same God, as the God-Man Jesus Christ, died for you! YOU personally were literally His motivation for continuing on during His Passion!​

Who are we but mere creatures of God!! And to think that He took on our flesh and became like one of us!! WOW!

 

[wanstronian]

Clearly one cannot say with any condidence at all that something is “God’s will” unless it can be proved that God exists.

However, if you have chosen to believe that God exists, then a corollary belief that everything is “God’s will” is a relatively minor additional step in the delusion.

 

[tonyrey]

How can we say anything is God’s “will”?

It is reasonable to believe that it is God’s will that we are alive because life is immensely valuable.

How do we not know it is just “chance” for the good things that happen in our life?

Our enjoyment of life is not accidental: it is the result of the way we are made. That does not mean good things never occur accidentally. We may meet someone with whom we fall in love entirely by chance. It could have been a sheer coincidence. It may have been intended by God but there is no way of knowing because we do not have insight into God’s mind.

For example, when people say, “Oh, it was God’s that such-and-such occurred/did not occur,” how can we believe that? What if it was just a random chance?

If an event is part of a general pattern which benefits us it is God’s will. For example, if a child grows normally and becomes a strong healthy adult it is clearly not by chance.

When unusual events are confined to individuals it is more difficult to decide whether they are due to chance. If a person wins the lottery we cannot tell whether God intervened but it seems unlikely because material wealth is obviously not God’s primary concern. If a person is cured miraculously there is little doubt it is God’s will because the purpose of life is not to die as a result of disease or an accident. On the other hand if a sick person is not cured we cannot say the sickness is due to God’s will. It is permitted by God but it is caused by the interplay of natural laws. Cancer is caused by exposure to radiation, for example, and it is usually due to chance that people become ill in that way. Sometimes it is caused by human ignorance, malice or expediency - as in the case of the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Unusual events which affect a large number of people are usually due to chance. When an earthquake or tidal wave destroys a city it is clearly not God’s will that so many people should be maimed and killed. We do not attribute every earthquake and tidal wave to God’s will, so why should we think disasters are the exception? They are the result of unfortunate coincidences which are inevitable in the immensely complex system we call nature.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that many events are caused by human beings. Earthquakes are sometimes the result of extraction of oil or gas from below the ground or the construction of dams. That is why we have to be very cautious when deciding whether an event is God’s will. What we do know - if we believe in God - is that everything is ultimately for the best.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

How can we say anything is God’s “will”?
How do we not know it is just “chance” for the good things that happen in our life?
For example, when people say, “Oh, it was God’s will that such-and-such occurred/did not occur,” how can we believe that? What if it was just a random chance?

This is not an easy question to answer. The mere fact something happens does not mean God wanted it to happen.

I’ve had a fair number of spiritual experiences of one sort or another. A couple of years after I became a Christian, I had a vision where someone appeared to me and said, “Mr. Missenden is going to come to you with a job offer. I want you to take it.” In the vision I argued back, stating that I’d just come out of a unstable situation and now has a government job. The other party stated that if I stayed where I was, there would be a conspiracy against me and I’d lose my job.

I basically ignored the vision and forgot about it. But a few weeks later, the pastor, the above Rev. Missenden came to me and said, “A person I know who works with disabled people asked me if I knew of any good administrators, and I thought about you. There wouldn’t be much money in it, but I think you’d be happier there.” Then he added, “I think that if you stay where you are, there’ll be a conspiracy against you and you’ll lose your job.”

To cut a long story short I didn’t take the job and about ten years later I lost my job. I have reason to believe there was a conspiracy, including at least one pastor, a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, and other parties.

Yet the pastor at a later time said to me in his office, “I think that was an important decision”, with the implication that I’d missed an important boat. However he then went on to say, “I hold myself partly responsible. You were a new Christian at the time, And I think you’d have had trouble down the track anyway.”

I asked him why he thought I’d have trouble.

He replied, “I think you’ll become Catholic and it’s mainly a Protestant outfit. So I think that eventually you still would have lost your job.”

So there it is. I didn’t take the job, and I did lose the position I held some time later. I think God wanted me to take the job. However due to a lot of very frustrating events, I don’t really trust God. In fact, a few years after the pastor’s death, I had a vision one night where someone said to him, “He doesn’t trust me!” To which the pastor replied, “Now that you’ve shown me all this, I don’t blame him! You expect him to do all these things, and you treat him like this!”

For a start I have a 3/4 hearing loss, I was bullied for 20 years by an abusive father, I’ve had all my efforts to do the right thing at home, school, work and even my original Protestant Church thrown back in my face. So I don’t trust God.

Take it or leave it. But God does have a will. But just because something happens or doesn’t happen, doesn’t mean that it was God’s specific will or desire. Some things are very definitely NOT His will. Evil things are the devil’s will. But God allows these things to happen, and can use even evil things for good, for those who trust Him, to quote Paul.

The problem is that He can make it very hard to trust Him. Believe me.

 

[geometer]

With a smile on your face and love in your heart for god, and your intended, ask god for the appropriate miracle, make it a big miracle…

If its big enough, you definitely, will know…

 

[Abu]

Using reason, correctly, and following the evidence of reality, anyone can conclude that God exists. This is how the world’s former leading atheist explains it.

Scientific Evidence Led Antony Flew to Believe in God
historyphilosophybooks.suite101.com/article.cfm/there_is_a_god_by_antony_flew_book_review

The former atheist Antony Flew has come to a belief in God because he examined the mounting evidence of scientific and natural discoveries especially in the field of DNA, and adhered to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it leads. His conclusion was that nothing else but a Supreme Intelligence could explain its own existence as well as the creation of the world.​

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism.
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

Excerpts:
Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

“Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe. Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.

“Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.”

From the eye-witness testimony of many to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, Catholics know the humanity and divinity of God through Christ’s Church.
[My underlining].

 

[wanstronian]

Using reason, correctly, and following the evidence of reality, anyone can conclude that God exists. This is how the world’s former leading atheist explains it.

Scientific Evidence Led Antony Flew to Believe in God
historyphilosophybooks.suite101.com/article.cfm/there_is_a_god_by_antony_flew_book_review

The former atheist Antony Flew has come to a belief in God because he examined the mounting evidence of scientific and natural discoveries especially in the field of DNA, and adhered to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it leads. His conclusion was that nothing else but a Supreme Intelligence could explain its own existence as well as the creation of the world.​

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism.
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

Excerpts:
Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

“Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe. Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.

“Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.”

From the eye-witness testimony of many to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, Catholics know the humanity and divinity of God through Christ’s Church.
[My underlining].

I have to say that Flew’s comment, “The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary” shows how tenuous his grasp of logic is. It sounds to me like his incredulity, not his logic and common sense, has led him to abandon rationality in favour of superstition.

I’m not sure why you underlined the bit about free will?

 

[tonyrey]

I have to say that Flew’s comment, “The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary” shows how tenuous his grasp of logic is. It sounds to me like his incredulity, not his logic and common sense, has led him to abandon rationality in favour of superstition.

It is easy to accuse Flew of superstition and illogicality but to explain why is quite another matter. To dismiss the laws of nature, life and the universe.as inexplicable facts is both unscientific and unreasonable. To regard matter as the probable be-all and end-all of existence is illogical and superstitious because there is not one jot of evidence that matter is either the sole reality or an adequate source of order, organization, information, development and synthesis. The onus is on the materialist to explain how these phenomena originated. If he cannot he should be open-minded and refrain from denigrating theism.

 

[Abu]

The mind or intellect produces ideas such as being, goodness, truth, beauty, virtue, honour, ambition, justice, wisdom. Can any organ lay hold of such as these? Can you smell or see ideas? Can you imagine what ambition would look like, and draw a picture of it? These are individual limitations or settings which are beyond the grasp of any bodily sense organ. They require a spiritual power to comprehend them. This power is present in a spiritual substance which we call the soul.

When this is not thought through, the need for a spiritual source for a spiritual entity – the soul – is not perceived. The source or creator of the soul we call God – the source and creator of all intelligent design in the universe which is full of irreducible complexity.

There are worthwhile books which enable the newcomer to get acquainted with this concept of reality.

[CF *Six days of Creation p 342-8; Apologetics And Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph]

 

[wanstronian]

It is easy to accuse Flew of superstition and illogicality but to explain why is quite another matter. To dismiss the laws of nature, life and the universe.as inexplicable facts is both unscientific and unreasonable.

These laws are inexplicable, at least currently. We are slowly (through science, not religion) discovering the answers. We’ll never know all the answers, but saying “God did it” is no more an explanation than, “Graham the pink kangaroo did it.”

To regard matter as the probable be-all and end-all of existence is illogical and superstitious because there is not one jot of evidence that matter is either the sole reality or an adequate source of order, organization, information, development and synthesis.

Maybe not, but at least there is evidence that matter exists, whereas there is no evidence that supernatural entities exist. So it’s easy to point out that matter can’t explain everything, but it’s a far more logical assumption than to posit an unprovable non-material answer that still can’t explain everything! Occam’s Razor!!

The onus is on the materialist to explain how these phenomena originated. If he cannot he should be open-minded and refrain from denigrating theism.

The onus is no more on the materialist than it is on the ‘immaterialist.’ At least the materialist makes use of stuff that can be shown, irrefutably, to exist!

 

[tonyrey]

It is easy to accuse Flew of superstition and illogicality but to explain why is quite another matter. To dismiss the laws of nature, life and the universe.as inexplicable facts is both unscientific and unreasonable.

There is no sign that science discovering how or why the laws of nature, personal existence and the universe originated. And how can science explain scientifically the principles on which it is based?

                          To regard matter as the **probable** be-all and end-all of existence is illogical and superstitious because there is not one jot of evidence that matter is either the sole reality or an adequate source of order, organization, information, development and synthesis.

Maybe not, but at least there is evidence that matter exists, whereas there is no

evidence that supernatural entities exist.

It is significant that order, organization, information, development and synthesis are associated with a rational mind rather than non-rational processes. Your mind is a supernatural entity! It can perform feats beyond the scope of “natural” objects.

So it’s easy to point out that matter can’t explain everything, but it’s a far more logical assumption than to posit an unprovable non-material answer that still can’t explain everything! Occam’s Razor!!

Occam’s Razor itself is a non-material principle used by a non-material intelligence!

The onus is on the materialist to explain how these phenomena originated. If he cannot he should be open-minded and refrain from denigrating theism.

The onus is no more on the materialist than it is on the ‘immaterialist.’ At least the materialist makes use of stuff that can be shown, irrefutably, to exist!

You refuse to accept the fact that the only irrefutable reality is the stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in your mind. All the rest is inference…

 

[wanstronian]

There is no sign that science discovering how or why the laws of nature, personal existence and the universe originated. And how can science explain scientifically the principles on which it is based?

To take that rather silly argument to its natural conclusion - how can anything explain anything? Why not just give up thinking altogether?

It is significant that order, organization, information, development and synthesis are associated with a rational mind rather than non-rational processes.

Not that old chestnut again. Your repeated insistence that rationality cannot have developed but must have been bestowed is not only entirely baseless, but also ignores the question of how the bestower itself achieved rationality. An explanation based on what we can demonstrate to exist - matter - is by far the more logical starting point than an arbitrary assertion of supernatural flim-flam.

Your mind is a supernatural entity! It can perform feats beyond the scope of “natural” objects.

You can demonstrate that the mind is not the product of the physical brain? Why didn’t you present this evidence the last time we had this discussion!!! Please enlighten us all.

Occam’s Razor itself is a non-material principle used by a non-material intelligence!

It is a principle derived and created by a physical human brain using biochemical reactions. We know that brains have a physical make-up, and we know that brains function using biochemical interaction. If you have evidence that something else is involved in the process of thought, I invite you once again to present this evidence.

You refuse to accept the fact that the only irrefutable reality is the stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in your mind. All the rest is inference…

Well, I made the mistake of pointing this very thing out to you as an extreme example of what could be held to be true. You then seized upon it for the remainder of the thread as some sort of refutation of the other things I was saying. It’s one of the reasons I abandoned the thread, as I warned you at the time.

But if you insist on claiming that your personal consciousness is the only thing that exists in the universe (ie. that you effectively are God), then go right ahead. It means you’re only imagining that I’ve typed this response anyway. Why don’t you imagine me and my inconvenient rationality out of existence altogether?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

These laws are inexplicable, at least currently. We are slowly (through science, not religion) discovering the answers. We’ll never know all the answers, but saying “God did it” is no more an explanation than, "Graham the pink kangaroo did it."Maybe not, but at least there is evidence that matter exists, whereas there is no evidence that supernatural entities exist. So it’s easy to point out that matter can’t explain everything, but it’s a far more logical assumption than to posit an unprovable non-material answer that still can’t explain everything! Occam’s Razor!!
The onus is no more on the materialist than it is on the ‘immaterialist.’ At least the materialist makes use of stuff that can be shown, irrefutably, to exist!

Your last statement is pretty silly. We ALL make “use of stuff that can be shown, irrefutably, to exist.” There are plenty of Christian scientists you know, and of course we all use material things every day of our life. We’re ALL materialists in that sense. So what?

The argument is about the hidden CAUSE of that irrefutably existing stuff.

Now you tell me how this universe came into being, and why it all hangs together in an organised fashion, why the laws as such are so consistent, why physical Constants are constant, and very finely tuned, why there are nano-machines in the cell, how they got there, and do it without referring to intelligent design. Show me the step-wise random processes as to how these incredibly complicated machines just “happened” to eventuate.

Show me your basis for believing there is no design behind these brilliant little biological machines.

Show me a single man-made object that did not involve “intelligent” design.

When you can do that, I’ll believe you’ve got a case. Until then, I’ll stick with God, whom from personal experience I know exists. And judges.

Then tell me why a blind universe should move towards intelligence at all.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no sign that science discovering how or why the laws of nature, personal existence and the universe originated. And how can science explain scientifically the principles on which it is based?

                            To take that rather silly argument to its natural conclusion - how can *anything* explain *anything*? Why not just give up thinking altogether?

If it’s silly philosophers of science are silly and wasting their time .Do you think science can make no contribution whatsoever to an explanation of the principles on which it is based?

It is significant that order, organization, information, development and synthesis are associated with a rational mind rather than non-rational processes.

Your repeated insistence that rationality cannot have developed but must have been bestowed is not only entirely baseless, but also ignores the question of how the bestower itself achieved rationality.

You are evading the fact that order, organization, information, development and synthesis are associated with a rational mind rather than non-rational processes.
You are also ignoring the fact that rationality is the source of all your arguments that irrationality is a fundamental attribute of reality. There is no need to ask how rationality originated because it is clearly a far more powerful and adequate factor than irrationality.

An explanation based on what we can demonstrate to exist - matter - is by far the more logical starting point than an arbitrary assertion of supernatural flim-flam.

You are again resorting to natural “flim-flam” as is demonstrated by the words “we can demonstrate”. If you didn’t have a rational mind you wouldn’t be able to demonstrate anything.

Your mind is a supernatural entity! It can perform feats beyond the scope of “natural” objects.

You can demonstrate that the mind is not the product of the physical brain? Why didn’t you present this evidence the last time we had this discussion!!! Please enlighten us all.

Again you are evading the fact that the mind can perform feats beyond the scope of mindless objects.
Can you demonstrate that the brain - and everything else for that matter - is not the product of mind? I prefer to be brainless rather than mindless!

Occam’s Razor itself is a non-material principle used by a non-material intelligence!

It is a principle derived and created by a physical human brain using biochemical reactions.

An intangible principle created by a tangible lump of tissue? If anything is “flim-flam” this is. Can you explain precisely how this feat is achieved?

We know that brains have a physical make-up, and we know that brains function using biochemical interaction. If you have evidence that something else is involved in the process of thought, I invite you once again to present this evidence.

The mind which you refuse to accept as an autonomous entity. Can you explain precisely how this biochemical interaction develops the power of insight, intuition and introspection?

You refuse to accept the fact that the only

irrefutable reality is the stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in your mind. All the rest is inference…Well, I made the mistake of pointing this very thing out to you as an extreme example of what could be held to be true. You then seized upon it for the remainder of the thread as some sort of refutation of the other things I was saying. It’s one of the reasons I abandoned the thread, as I warned you at the time.

You have not explained why it is an extreme example rather than a fundamental fact on which all our thinking is based. You abandoned the thread because it is impossible to refute that fact.

But if you insist on claiming that your personal consciousness is the only thing that exists in the universe (ie. that you effectively are God), then go right ahead. It means you’re only imagining that I’ve typed this response anyway. Why don’t you imagine me and my inconvenient rationality out of existence altogether? ]

This is a desperate manoeuvre to evade the issue and you know it.
Let me spell it out so that there is no possible confusion. Our stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in your mind is the only immediate, direct knowledge we have. WE infer the existence of everything else, including other minds, from our perceptions which are consistent with the perceptions of other people. The mind is the starting point but it is not the sole reality…

 

[tonyrey]

Correction: Our stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in our mind is the only immediate, direct knowledge we have.