3

In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing (source).

In essence, I am asking for philosophical [a priori] evidence and not empirical evidence that God created the universe.

bad_coder
  • 129
  • 6
R. Brown
  • 155
  • 5
  • 1
    But from a "logical" point of view there is no proof (i.e. logical evdience) that the universe is created; thus, no proof either that God has created it. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Aug 19 '15 at 15:58
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA thanks for the thought...I edited my question. – R. Brown Aug 19 '15 at 16:24
  • I don't really understand the question. Idealism may or may not be Theism and some of what you say does not apply to some versions of it. I'd say the evidence for God is whatever it is regardless of whether we're an Idealist, Materialist or non-dualist. . –  Mar 31 '20 at 12:06

6 Answers6

5

First, one has to make clear which of the many gods is meant. Because theistic people in different religions speak about many different gods: The Olympic gods from the time of Homer, the Egyptian gods, the Vedic gods, the Hinduistic gods, the monotheistic Jewish and Christian god named Jahwe, and many more.

Secondly, in Christian theology the attempt to prove the existence of god by logical reasoning alone - withount any empirical base - uses the definition

god = a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (lat. aliquid quo maius nihil cogitari posset)

You find the attempt to prove the existence of such being in chap. II of Anselm of Canterbury: Proslogion. In short, Anselm reasons indirectly: In case such being misses existence then one can conceive a greater being, namely a being which in addition to all other properties also exists. Following the line of Anselm's argumentation one can easily derive that the being in question has also created the world, otherwise one could imagine a greater being. Anselm's argument is named the ontological argument.

The argument was already questioned by a Christian monk, Gaunilo, in a brilliant controversy with Anselm. A reference is http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/ . The main counter argument has been given by Kant: Existence is not an additional property.

Thirdly, a certain type of argument focus on proving that the universe has been created by a creator. That's the argument from cosmology. Apparently, it has an empirical premise, namely the existence of the universe taken as a fact. The argument is due to Leibniz. His reasoning in short: From his premise that all things have a sufficient reason Leibniz concludes the existence of a first reason of the universe, which he names god - see Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Ueber den letzten Ursprung der Dinge (in German).

Today, all attempts to prove the existence of a god or of any of his doings by philosophical or scientific means are considered controversial.

Note. I changed my last sentence because of the comment of @James Kingsbery

Jo Wehler
  • 20,817
  • 2
  • 26
  • 77
  • 1
    "all attempts to prove the existence of a god or of any of his doings by philosophical... means are considered unsatisfactory and failed." Well, that's one person's opinion. There are several examples of those who have converted to religion from reading philosophy. – James Kingsbery Aug 19 '15 at 21:56
  • @James Kinsbery I changed the my last sentence. - Can you please indicate some of your examples with reference? – Jo Wehler Aug 19 '15 at 22:21
  • One well known example is CS Lewis. One less well known example (but her conversion story is very oriented around philosophy) is [Holly Ordway](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586179993/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1). I could come up with many others. In any case, I think it is fair to say that it is "controversial." – James Kingsbery Aug 19 '15 at 22:43
  • @James Kingsbery How sure are you, that the conversion of CS Lewis and Holly Ordway was caused by philosophical arguments, e.g. by one of the philosophical attempts to prove the existence of god? – Jo Wehler Aug 19 '15 at 23:01
  • 1
    They say so explicitly in their books detailing their conversion stories. – James Kingsbery Aug 19 '15 at 23:09
  • Not sure what the difference is between the Vedic gods and the Hinduistic gods are as they are the same. The Vedas teach only one Cause of the universe. It strikes me that you have a lot of preconceived on Hinduism being polytheistic - which it is not. – Swami Vishwananda Aug 20 '15 at 10:52
  • @Swami Vishwananda I consider Vedic gods those named in the Vedic Samhitas, e.g. Indra, Agni, Vritra, Varuna, Rudra, Surya. I consider Hindu gods and goddesses those from post-Vedic times like Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Brahma, Parvati, Sarasvati, Lakshmi. In my opinion, the main source for the Hindu gods are the Puranas. At most the Hindu god Shiva is sometimes claimed to be identical to the Vedic god Rudra. Both types of religions I consider polytheistic. But I know that from the viewpoint of Advaita-Vedanta one prefers the “grand unification” – to borrow a term from current physics. – Jo Wehler Aug 20 '15 at 11:46
  • Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva are vedic. The 'gods' is a loose translation of the Sanskrit 'deva'. I more literal translation of the word deva is 'shining one' - not god as is tossed around in the West. The shining ones are titles, like the word governor. An individual soul can become a deva. Devas last only so long as a cycle of the universe. When the universe is destroyed and a new universe is created, new souls become devas for the new cycle. The 'grand unification' has been in Hinduism since the Rig Veda. – Swami Vishwananda Aug 21 '15 at 04:36
  • Read Rig Veda x. 90. 1-5. Complete rejection of pantheism, much less polytheism. Also Rig Veda x. 129. 1-7. – Swami Vishwananda Aug 21 '15 at 10:38
  • Concerning Vedic and Hindu gods I quote from *Doniger, Wendy: The Hindus. An Alternative History.* Chapter 5: "The great gods of later Hinduism, Vishnu and Shiva (in the form of Rudra) make only cameo appearances in the Veda. By contrast, the most important gods of the Veda, such as Agni, Soma, Indra, and Varuna, all closely tied to the Vedic sacrifice, become far less important in later Hinduism, though they survice as symbolic figures of natural forces: fire, the moon, rain, and the waters, respectively." That's what I want to express with my difference between Vedic and Hindu gods. – Jo Wehler Aug 21 '15 at 14:21
  • Rig Veda X. 129. 1-7 is considered a distinguished passage also in the academic domain. I think it is singular that a work of Shruti takes into consideration the agnosticism as in verse 7. For me both viewpoints are opposites. - Could it be that the frequent differences of your and mine viewpoint simply mirror the differences between the position of a follower of Advaita-Vedanta and the position of a follower of the study of religions? – Jo Wehler Aug 21 '15 at 14:41
  • Doniger writes in the same chapter "The Rig Veda has a kind of polytheism, but one that already has in it the first seeds of what will flower, in the philosphical texts called the Upanishads, into monism." Hence if one focus upon the Upanishads and sets aside the Samhitas and the Puranas one sees only monism as a philosphical principle but not the polytheism of the other components of Vedic and Hindu religion. - Doniger in her book explains the academic subtleness stating "The polytheism of Vedic religion is actually a kind od serial monotheism that Mueller named henotheism [...]" – Jo Wehler Aug 21 '15 at 18:28
2

EDITED AFTER COMMENT:

  1. Considering that we as human beings have free-will, then the entity or higher power or whatever that it was that had us created must have had free-will also!
    What I mean by this is that for those who say that the universe was created from a big bang thing or something like that... I can accept it to an extent only...it doesn't have an answer to creatures with free will i.e. it's like an accident( which doesn't have any free-will) has been able to create something that can have free-will, to me that's just beyond it's reach!
  2. There are many things in exist in our wisdom, our wisdom is the most beautiful creation ever, and again by accident, big bang or whatever, such a great wisdom can not be created, its beyond its reach (can a stupid monkey ever create all-wise human, no it can't, because it's just beyond it's reach) By wisdom I don't mean how to compute 2+2=0, no! I mean what tells us what is good and what is evil, to go and help people/ have humility, be thankful, have affection, have cleanliness, be honest... Or on the other hand it tells us not to lie, steal, cheat, hold grudge, be disgraceful... I could list a dozen of more traits..., you get the idea. So since our wisdom already has these, as if it was there from day 1, then its creator must have had more of that wisdom! (currently there are so many movies targeting artificial intelligence, but they are only targeting that computing ability or very very basic wisdom related traits).
  3. There is an Arabic saying:

    When you look at camel-excrement... you think of a camel. When you see footsteps ... you think of a person who has passed by in a certain direction!

    Then how is it possible that when you look at the skies with all the stars, and earth with all the valleys does't direct you to a knowledgeable creator?

If a person can conclude that for something as stupid as camel-excrement you think that it had a specific doer, or for foot-steps or at a higher level for a building how can he not then conclude that for the biggest creation the universe itself?

Honey
  • 291
  • 2
  • 12
  • I think your point about free-will is great. Your first point (the Arabic saying), points to material evidence, and the OP specifically asked about points of view that is skeptical about mind-independent things. – James Kingsbery Aug 21 '15 at 20:20
  • @JamesKingsbery I am not sure if I understood you correctly, is it better now? I added another point and shifted point 3 to the bottom as I think based on what you are saying it's less related! – Honey Aug 22 '15 at 16:49
0

Yes. A Hindu philosopher by the name of Gaudapada wrote a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad called Gaudapada's Karika. It is a defense of the Hindu Advaita (non-dual) monistic philosophy. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 specifically are arguments for the non-dual Brahman using reasoning and logical argumentation alone, no scriptural references. In those chapters Sankara in his commentary of the Karika gives opposing arguments of nihilists and materialists and defends his arguments against those opposing views as well. He gives arguments that the only reality is the non-dualistic Brahman and that the world or reality that is perceived is an illusion. It is best read in conjunction with the Mandukya Upanishad and Shankaracharya's commentary on both (also referred to as Adi Sankara or simply Sankara).

Another good one is Plotinus's Six Enneads.

I also like Quantum Physics and Ultimate Reality: Mystical Writings of Great Physicists by Michael Green

Swami Vishwananda
  • 3,595
  • 2
  • 19
  • 27
  • You give some references with regard to Hindu literature. Could you please add some explanation with regard to content. The OP considers the term *universe*: What is the relation to the term *brahman* from your answer? Literally, the Mandukya upanishad names brahman only in verse 2. It does not mention that brahman has been created. In case the Karika or Sankaras commentary adds that brahman has been created: Has it been created by a god. If yes: Which god? And what is the evidence from philosophy that this god created brahman? – Jo Wehler Aug 20 '15 at 08:23
  • It's difficult for me to read off from your post the answer to the original question from OP. – Jo Wehler Aug 20 '15 at 08:23
  • @jowehler Based on your previous comments on Hinduism, I understand why. You need to broaden your readings in Hinduism. All of the references given answer exactly the question of Idealism as defined in the question, that the universe is a mental creation or 'Great Thought' and has no material existence. Brahman is the One Great Thought - self-existent, eternal, and unchangeable. Everything is derived from It, but in Reality, there is only the Great Thought, there is no universe. The 'gods' you refer to are part of the universe, part of the illusion. – Swami Vishwananda Aug 20 '15 at 10:43
  • @jowehler btw, the Mandukya is only 12 verses in length. After using the term Brahman, it then goes on to explain it in the remaining verses. Your comment is misleading. – Swami Vishwananda Aug 21 '15 at 04:38
  • Verse 3-7 - under the heading atman - deal with different states of consciousness and unconciousness of a person. While verse 8-12 - under the heading OM - deals with the phonemes of this syllable. Only the grand unifcation OM = brahman = atman suggests that all passages deal with the same subject. - But a concept like brahman, stretched so far that it covers nearly everything, is at risk to cover nearly nothing. Of course the latter reservation does not hold for Mandukya Upanishad alone. – Jo Wehler Aug 22 '15 at 06:07
  • not unconsciousness. It deals with the 4 states (or quarters of consciousness experienced) which are the waking, dream state of sleep, dreamless state of sleep, and the Turiya - That which lies beyond the 3 states of consciousness of man, which is Brahman=Atman=Om... – Swami Vishwananda Aug 22 '15 at 06:12
0

If we take God as the superessential essence; the purest essence which has no predicates and therefore serves as its own existence, as formally formulated. And furthermore, having no predicates is therefore without a flaw and is perfect. This perfect being can create the universe by allowing it to be. Fiat lux.

Chris Degnen
  • 4,780
  • 1
  • 14
  • 21
  • The PO asks for evidence from philosophical argumentation. Could you please explicate the meaning of some of your core terms like *superessential*, *essence which has no predicates*, *serves as its own existence*? And add some arguments to your theses? Otherwise it's hard to follow your answer. – Jo Wehler Aug 20 '15 at 07:23
0

As @jo wehler put it, who said only one god made the job? Much more when it's said to be "on our image and likeness", that makes necessary at least a god-man and a god-woman, as there are in many other, less patriarchal, mythologies.

You just can't prove it. Just like you can't prove idealism, or materialism, for that matter.

That's why it's said that "proof" is an abstraction that only exists in three areas: math, law and monotheism.

Rodrigo
  • 1,440
  • 12
  • 25
0

If I can add an obvious approach that has been tried: Descartes famously said "I think, therefore I am," and from that statement put forward an argument for God's existence. See specifically Meditations on the First Philosophy, Mediation 3 for the full argument. For a summary of the argument, see the Wikipedia page (reproduced below):

Argument 1

  1. Something cannot come from nothing.
  2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality. 3.I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality.
  3. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea.
  4. So God — a being with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the source of my idea of God).
  5. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being.
  6. So God is benevolent...
  7. So God would not deceive me, and would not permit me to err without giving me a way to correct my errors.

Argument 2

  1. I exist.
  2. My existence must have a cause.
  3. The only possible ultimate causes are (a) myself (b) my always having existed (c) my parents (d) something less perfect than God or (e) God
  4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
  5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
  6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
  7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
  8. Therefore, e. God exists.
James Kingsbery
  • 5,919
  • 1
  • 18
  • 41