"mental reality" proof of gods existence

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Magnolia5275
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:51 am

"mental reality" proof of gods existence

Post by Magnolia5275 »

I have put together an argument that I think is pretty good. Just note that the first part is not my own, I found it posted here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent ... checkmate/

The argument makes a strong case for why the burden of proof is on the atheists to show that a world outside of mind exists. It doesn't say this directly, but this conclusion naturally follows from its logic. Here it is:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1. All experience is mental, regardless of whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it.
  2. We can only ever directly interact with and experience mental experience/phenomena.
  3. We have direct, empirical evidence mind exists and that is the only thing we can have such evidence exists, even in principle.
  4. What we actually experience as “reality” is thus necessarily, entirely mental (again, whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it.)
  5. Thus, “mental reality,” the mental world that we all live in, is not a theory; it is an undeniable fact of our existence. The only relevant question is if an additional, extra-mental “world” exists that our mental reality interacts with in any meaningful way.
  6. Since mental reality is an experiential and logical fact, it does not have to be supported by argument or evidence any more than “I exist” needs to be supported.
  7. The proposed existence of extra-mental phenomena that interacts meaningfully with mind cannot be empirically experienced as such. Thus, this proposition requires rational argument and/or evidence to support it.
  8. All evidence that is gathered can only be experienced as mental phenomena and thus is necessarily congruent with mental reality theory, otherwise it could not be experienced mentally (if it can be experienced mentally, it necessarily can be generated mentally.)
  9. All rational arguments for the existence of an external physical world originate and operate entirely within mind and strictly obey the rules and principles of mind.
  10. As per #’s 1, 8 & 9, such argument can only ever be about mental experience using mental capacities, following mental rules in making any argument, reaching a conclusion contained entirely within mind.
  11. Given all the above, there can never be, even in principle, evidence gathered or rational argument presented to support the existence of extra-mental reality that can distinguish it from mental reality.
  12. Thus, belief in an extra-mental reality is necessarily irrational because (1) it cannot be directly experienced, (2) no evidence can be gathered that can distinguish it from mental reality, and (3) no rational argument can be levied in support of it that does not innately rely upon that supposed “external world” being entirely consonant with, indeed subordinate to, the entirely mental nature of logical principles and processes.
Belief in any kind of extra-mental world is unsupportable, unwarranted, unnecessary, without even the potential for evidence, and thus entirely irrational. In effect, the “external, physical world” perspective can only ever be an irrational belief in an imaginary world – or perhaps more appropriately, a delusion.

Source: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent ... checkmate/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument above clearly shows how atheists are asserting a claim about a reality that they cannot prove, and is not even possible to prove in principle. "mental reality" is all we actually know of, and it's the only thing we know of. When atheists claim there is a reality outside mind (because a reality without god, is a reality that is, in its totality, outside a mind), they are asserting an extra-mental reality that is supposedly behind the only thing we know of as reality. This is like saying there is a mythical sea monster that is behind the movement of the waves. This claim needs to be proven. The burden of proof is on the atheists, not on the theists. They are the ones who need to show that a world "outside mind" is a real thing and not a figment of their imagination.

I think it should also be clarified that the burden of proof is not on the person "making a claim", it's on the person making a claim that is beyond what can be directly known from normal everyday experience. For example, we don't experience the earth as round, if someone says the earth is round, that is a claim that needs to be proven. It's up to that person to prove that claim is true, and indeed it has been proven scientifically that the earth is round. That is how we know it's true.

The fact is, we experience the world in colors, and that is how we see shapes which then allows us to differentiate objects and give them names. Everything we know of is foundationed entirely on mental experience. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims the existence of an "extra-mental" reality. "mental" is all that we are actually observing every day in our lives. Anyone who labels "parts" of his mental experience as "non-mental", needs to justify why he is doing that.

With that said, here is my argument where I make an even stronger case for why there cannot even be a possibility for the existence of a non-mental world:
  1. Your mental representation in your mind, is all you have, that you can use, to talk about anything.
  2. You can only use your mental representation to define reality
  3. Your definition of reality is constructed entirely (and only) from mental representation.
  4. Your definition of reality only points to [a mental representation of [reality]]
  5. With that established, we can now reinsert the definition of reality into the above sentence:
  6. Your definition of reality only points to [a mental representation of [a mental representation of [reality]]]
  7. Your definition of reality only points to [a mental representation of [a mental representation of [a mental representation of [a mental representation of [reality]]]]]
  8. Your definition of reality only points to a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation of a mental representation... (infinity...)
  9. Your definition of reality never concludes in anything other than mental representation!
  10. You don't have a word, or thought, that can even possibly reference anything other than mental representation.
  11. Conclusion: "reality is mental representation itself".
  12. The above statement in quotes is correct by definition. The statement is true, because a word can only possibly mean what it references.
  13. Reality is thus, all mental.
  14. To say God does not exist, is to say reality is NOT foundationed upon a mind.
  15. If reality is mental it must be foundationed upon a mind, because "mental" belongs to the category of mind.
  16. Form 15, we can conclude that there must be a greater mind that is at the origin of everything we call reality.
  17. Such a mind, would be all-powerful and all-knowing considering that all of reality is within it.
  18. Such a mind, is the very definition of God.
  19. God therefore exists.

So to elaborate on my argument above, what I am saying is that everything in our language and imagination can only possibly be based on our mental experience. This means we don't even have a word, or the imaginary capacity, to reference a world that is non-mental. From this, it follows that words such as "reality", "world", "things", "facts" and "truth" can only in themselves reference our mental experience. So when we say a statement such as:

"there may be a [world] beyond our mental experience"

It becomes:

"there may be a [mental experience of a world] beyond our mental experience"

The word "world", could only have been constructed out of our mental experience itself, so that is all it can possibly mean. You can never use words that are only based on mental experience to reference anything beyond their mental meaning that they are foundationed upon.

"referencing" is something that can only happen inside the mind. What a word points to can only be the thing that originally contributed to its meaning, which is the shapes and colors within mental experience itself. A good analogy is how a computer can only point to its own memory. The mind is the same. It's a system of itself.

Just to clarify, this is not to mean, that there is no world outside our personal minds. It simply means that outside our personal minds, it must still be inside a mind. The world "outside" is just as real as the world is through our knowing of it. It is of the same property and quality as ourselves. What is on the inside is the same as what is on the outside. Reality is one category of truth.

So the conclusion is undeniable, a world that is not mental, is an oxymoron. To say there could be a non-mental "world", would be to contradict the very foundation of what the word is based on in the first place, which can only be mental experience. "a world outside the mind" is thus a contradiction just like a square circle is a contradiction.

Another angle that should be considered, is that when looking at reality in its totality, It can only be a truth to itself, in itself! In other words, Reality as a whole is in itself, of itself and for itself, just like our minds are! If reality is not self-aware of its own truth. How is reality a truth? How exactly can truth exist in unknown nothingness? It can't!

Given all this, I think it is safe to say that the existence of God, as a mind from which all reality originates and is foundationed upon, is a complete certainty. Reality is all mental and in the mind. It is not even possible to logically claim it is not. The logic conclusively points to the existence of God.


If you are wondering whether something similar to this line of reasoning, has ever been considered in the scientific community, it actually has. Arthur Eddington who was a physicist and mathematician known for foreshadowing the discovery and mechanism of nuclear fusion processes in stars, reached a similar conclusion regarding mental reality using the same reasoning I used here:
The idealist conclusion was not integral to his epistemology but was based on two main arguments.

The first derives directly from current physical theory. Briefly, mechanical theories of the ether and of the behaviour of fundamental particles have been discarded in both relativity and quantum physics. From this, Eddington inferred that a materialistic metaphysics was outmoded and that, in consequence, since the disjunction of materialism or idealism are assumed to be exhaustive, an idealistic metaphysics is required. The second, and more interesting argument, was based on Eddington's epistemology, and may be regarded as consisting of two parts. First, all we know of the objective world is its structure, and the structure of the objective world is precisely mirrored in our own consciousness. We therefore have no reason to doubt that the objective world too is "mind-stuff". Dualistic metaphysics, then, cannot be evidentially supported.

But, second, not only can we not know that the objective world is nonmentalistic, we also cannot intelligibly suppose that it could be material. To conceive of a dualism entails attributing material properties to the objective world. However, this presupposes that we could observe that the objective world has material properties. But this is absurd, for whatever is observed must ultimately be the content of our own consciousness, and consequently, nonmaterial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Idealism
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: "mental reality" proof of gods existence

Post by Agent Smith »

"Where the f*ck is it?!"

"It doesn't matter Matt!"

"Why, whaddaya mean?!"

"Come sit next to me Matt!"

"The hell I will! We need ta find it Jim! We must!!"

"Matt, Matt!! You're wastin' yer time!!"

"You mean ..." Matt gasped.

"Yes, Matt, yes" Jim replied.
commonsense
Posts: 5114
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: "mental reality" proof of gods existence

Post by commonsense »

If all experience is mental, then god is a mental construct in the minds of those who a priori believe in the existence of god.
Post Reply