Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the three main arguments for the existence of God; the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon... Paperback: mybook.to/doesGodexist
Why is it a problem for God to experience pain? Substance monism (Berkeley's Idealism) means God is all pain, God is all experience, God is all awareness, God is all existence, God is all turtles and it is turtles all the way down.
Absolutely Brilliant! The back and forth here is wonderful! Here is how I see it (Non-dual take): Consciousness is playing a huge game of hide and seek with itself, rising in the form the universe, in which parts of it (humans) believe that they are separate, and go on a massive goose chase to relieve this innate sense of lack, to find consciousness or God as it’s commonly known, but more likely than not humans just call it finding happiness. Of course the humans are not really there, since it’s all the activity of Consciousness forgetting itself and then trying to remember itself. The problem about being conscious of pain: That is only a problem with the viewpoint of an apparent separate finite mind. Actually the body is not conscious, and the mind is not conscious, only Consciousness is conscious. The body doesn’t have consciousness, consciousness has bodies, among other things.
even if no human perceives it, it is still perceived by God. According to Berkeley, God perceives everything, ensuring the continuous existence of all things.
Idealism is the position that God sustains reality in virtue of his omniscience or his perception and that all of reality is mental in nature I would say that reality is physical in nature. It does not depend for its existence on Gods perception but God sustains it by his power
God in the Quad There was a young man who said "God Must find it exceedingly odd To think that the tree Should continue to be When there's no one about in the quad." Reply: "Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd; I am always about in the quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God." Ronald Knox
Kant owes much more to Berkeley than he cares to admit. Schopenhauer said so & we all know that if schop said it then it must be the highest truth. Berkeley's explanation of the five senses are genius.
If the perceiver is the one who controls the story of reality (let's call him the game creator), then he could have accounted for the fact that the candle should have been burning when Max was away. And so, presents him with a half-burned candle when he comes back. They do that all the time in cartoons and films. If Berkeley was a contemporary he would have probably written about virtual reality and simulations.
You were perceiving the candle from the moment you saw it until the moment you saw it again, because there was an expectation by your perceptions. Candle + time = whatever you think. If you returned and it had defied your expectations, then you look closer and find the reason for the mistake.
One of the questions that fascinates me is: If we seek pleasure and the elimination of pain then would we consent to put our brain in a vat and have it fed with pleasurable, fulfilling and non painful experiences without end? It seems to me that in George Berkeley's case the answer is yes and he calls the vat "God."
One quick point before I give all my thoughts here, Berkeley said only about the things which we perceive, that *their* esse is percipi. To be is to be perceived. But equally important for Berkeley is that which perceives (mind). So Esse is percipi or percipere is Berkeley's full ontological statement about what exists in the world as genuinely referential entities, ideas, and the subjects of those ideas which themselves are insensible, but yet are capable of thought and action, i.e. mind. So we definitely aren't ideas in God's mind as the thumbnail suggests, we are minds which perceptions are instilled into by God
Also, another problem with Berkeley's argument about God, is that just like how David Hume pointed out, there is no more empirical evidence for Berkeley's all perceiving god anymore than physical reality itself. And that Berkeley's idealism is unfalsifiable, meaning there's no way to prove or disprove his theory. So we don't know for sure whether idealism, indirect realism or direct realism are true or not.
But we can create in our dreams what we have previously experienced so if God in his mind make us suffer doesn't this necessarily mean that he suffered before ?
@@MelonieG85 if this is true that reality is God dreams This would prove all religions that talk about a personal God Afterlife etc as false. So you're wrong on that
If people and our feelings are just conjurations of God's mind, just as we can dream of other people in pain, would that mean our pain isn't "real"? And beyond that, would that mean any emotion we have - love, happiness, sadness - is equally unreal? I suppose that does fold in well with the idea of reality and the ego as illusory... but it sure is a bummer. Also, I don't buy the argument that the pain felt in an imaginary character is not a sensation the dreamer feels, or has felt, themselves. Dreams are unconscious constructions and "remixes" of our perceptions. We can imagine pain because we first know and have experienced pain, surely? Then again, there are people in our world who are incapable of certain sensations or emotions and yet can imagine them as well. I wonder how fleshed out their idea of such phenomena are?
Please, do a video about the MUNCHHAUSEN TRILEMMA of epistemology. Like this comment if you would like to discuss this topic too, i think it would be really interesting to see its strengths and weaknesses
I've always found the philosophy of idealism to be interesting and worth entertaining as there is (to the best of my knowledge) no way of knowing for sure that the material world actually exists. That being said though, the idea of using a god to explain away the continuity issue seems like a copout and more importantly, it's very similar to a personal incredulity fallacy or as is commonly known, the god of the gaps. It's almost like idealism collapses under its own weight and as a result, a concept of a god is thrown in there to make it make sense. Just my thoughts on the topic though.
So I think Berkeley doesn't really make a continuity argument for the existence of God although it is commonly ascribed to him. Rather Berkeley argues for the existence of God through a causal argument as is discussed briefly ~ halfway through this video. Berkeley also makes a fascinating argument that is very underappreciated that what language is is only a sign system which gets its signification through linguistic convention. This is exactly like what we perceive in nature, implying there is a communicator and writer of language in the Universe, of magnificent power wisdom and goodness, God. Anyways. If either of these arguments are right (or both) then Berkeley's argument are sufficient for proving God's existence, and then he can say either that God always perceives, or that God makes the ideas such as we would perceive them upon reentering the room, had we always been there. So if we light a candle and leave the room, when we reenter it is burnt down because God gives us those ideas which we would come to expect had we been there perceiving the candle all along.
Your last point was maybe a good question but not a concluded point. God also has an idea of free will that he has extended to man and therefore it’s neither it’s not pantheism or panentheism it is free will which is in the mind of God which exempt himself from your use of free will.
No remember this is a impersonal god and where all the dream of god making it so any action we take to be the imagination of this god aswell we would be apart of this god like you know it's imagination supporting panetheism
@@miguelatkinson in in some situation related to free world. It is a thought of God only in the sense that he realizes it is a potentiality amongst choices. In the beginning he created all things we were told in John chapter 1. Therefore he created all potentialities they all exist, and within that universe, we make a choice, and he has left us to make that choice, and he watches as we do make that choice he allows that it was imagined as potential, not as reality in the sense which we really talked about it in the first place. Forgive any mistakes caused by the auto writing function.
@@DrBillHaberman I am not sure at all this contradicts what most theists think of god and I am not sure I see how freewill can exists in the same way in a theistic universe
I had never thought about God knowing pain. Before I already did think about "the boredom of God". Since he knows all the "present" states and the past and future states too, then for him nothing moves in his block universe. It's all there and always was. He doesn't need a memory then neither. That's however so boring and meaningless. It suggests that if God exists, he is perhaps not that omnipotent. Perhaps his center is controlled and boring but what is farther away has also a life of its own, with quantum uncertainty and even some freedom and of course also pain. If we accept that all that exists is nevertheless somehow a minor reflection of him, then he himself might know much pain and countless colors and alien emotions etc but he knows also the antidote, the anti-pain etc.. He could suffer or be bored if he wanted but it would be like a choice. In any case, I think a kind of static block universe seems not compatible with God. There must be some mechanism allowing for endless creativity.
What if you put an audio-video recorder in the forest and you recorded a tree falling in the forest? I'm sure you would find that a) the tree does still exist even when no one is there to perceive it first hand and b) if you recorded the tree falling in the forest and no one was in the forest when it fell, I'm sure you would find (when you watched the audio-video back) that the tree did indeed make a sound when it fell! Also, it seems to me, if we are all just ideas in God's mind then we will never be able to prove anything. This leads to another problem, if we are nothing more than ideas in God's mind and we are having this debate, then God is effectively debating with himself over his own idea! This doesn't hold with God being an omnipotent being - and knowing everything, when you know something there is no need for debate. Worse still it would seem to imply that God is the only thing (as we are ideas in his mind) and he knows this and yet he is still debating with himself!? Seems absurd to me!
God is not debating with himself. The ideas in his mind are debating with each other. It would be like me imagining a debate in my head between two imaginary people. That isn’t me having a debate with myself.
In this view of idealism, is libertarian free will possible? It sure does not seem possible. This would therefore contradict many theistic ideas of God.
@@liiveinternationalinitiati5004space time and science is Just idea in the mind of selfish beings to boost their ego and destroy the world 😂 unprove it
