Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

So it's fine to postulate an unverifiable God that is responsible for your consciousness, but not an unverifiable material substance?

it's epistemologically unverifiable. but with the necessity of an external source to explain our experience of lack of control, a mind makes less assumptions. you already know mind exists, so to postulate another mind to explain your experience doesn't take that huge a step. a substance we are unfamiliar with (as it is not directly part of our experience) is a bigger step.

You are making more than one assumption. You are assuming that a God exists, it is a being and has a consciousness like you do, but this consciousness is somehow different to yours in that it can control yours, and that this consciousness is the reason that you have a consciousness.

lets see... exists. check. conscious? well minds are conscious aren't they? just because there are defined attributes of a mind doesn't make those attributes separate assumptions from 'a mind exists.' different in that it has control? well, the extra mind was postulated to explain the problem of solipsism, so it would have to be different from mine or else it wouldn't solve this problem... which is again, a definitional attribute. not a separate assumption. lastly causality? in order for this mind to be connected to mine it would either be emergent from my mind or mine emergent from its. since this mind has control I lack, mine would have to be emergent. if my mind is emergent from this mind, then it had to emerge at some point. for once this is not a definitional attribute, but it is still a logical implication from the first assumption.

All you have experienced is your own consciousness - this has few of the properties of what you call a "grand consciousness"/God.

except that God is conscious like me, he has information like me, he has the ability to make choices like me, etc.

I could play the what-if game out too but I can't imagine talking myself into idealism as a viable alternative. Nothing wrong with it as an exercise of course but why would you want to live there, or do you?

glad you could join the party. why would you want to live there? i'm afraid what we want of reality has no impact on the nature of reality. I don't chose beliefs because I like them, but because they seem most reasonably true. it seems quite a shame your ability to accept something is impaired by your subjective liking of it.

[Mudhammam]

I would really like to see Rational do a weather report...

"God is feeling depressed today so bring out your umbrellas. His mental state is calling for a 70% chance of rain. But good news for you beach lovers because by this weekend his mind should be sunny with temperatures in the 80s"

[robvalue]

I'm a true ninja.

I can stealthily drop questions and objections into threads without anyone noticing.

I used to be a ninja as a kid as well. Especially to girls. They couldn't see me even if I was right in front of them.

Born ninja!

[Angrboda]

Are you suggesting that if I feel sad or frightened or lonely, it's because God is causing me to feel that?

I already answered this... and you ignored it.

you don't need to be a materialist to believe that. I believe that too, but I also think those material influences have predetermined properties due to their conscious source origin. but of course this conscious source is not our consciousness.

I apologize for being a bit slow on this, but I simply didn't understand your explanation here. Could you elaborate on this for me?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Friends don't let friends do philosophy.

[Whateverist]

I could play the what-if game out too but I can't imagine talking myself into idealism as a viable alternative. Nothing wrong with it as an exercise of course but why would you want to live there, or do you?

glad you could join the party. why would you want to live there? i'm afraid what we want of reality has no impact on the nature of reality. I don't chose beliefs because I like them, but because they seem most reasonably true. it seems quite a shame your ability to accept something is impaired by your subjective liking of it.

Okay, well played. But I only assumed it was an idea you were motivated to make work because you'll find so little support for it. But I'm all for following where the evidence leads, both the kind that is empirically determined and that which you recognize from the inside out. You've just taken a turn that doesn't at all tempt me. Enjoy.

[AFTT47]

I'll give you this, Rational AKD, you make the most thought-provoking argument for God I've ever encountered. It's a much better argument for pantheism than Christianity though.

[JuliaL]

You say 'all is mind' or mind derived and give no further explanation of what is mind or how it produces matter.
You say 'God' to explain why you are not fully in conscious control of everything.

Bah, I say 'magic' and I win by one assumption to two.
There is no reason to prefer a system with the fewest axioms when any of the axioms aren't fully defined and understood. You can hide more than one universe in a God.

Because you admit no understanding of the workings of 'mind' you cannot defend against the following hypotheticals:
a) Analogous your autonomic nervous system, your mind is in control of the entirety of reality, but not aware of this. Hence, no separate conscious God.
b) The mind of God is completely different from your mind. So different that, in all observables, the mind of God is identical with matter: still not overtly conscious but quite compatible with materialism.

[robvalue]

Artists' impression of how these kind of arguments prove "God":

http://youtu.be/tO5sxLapAts