The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

The God of Judaism/Christianity is the ultimate Solipsist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,904 times Debate No: 12185
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




Good day. Thanks to my opponent in advance. As per the Topic, I am in the affirmative of my resolution that the God of Judaism/Christianity is the ultimate and only confirmable Solipsist.

I have made this debate one round per person (1 for Pro, 1 for Con) so that we have one shot to put our arguments forth and let our expressed theories stand on their own (This is to avoid tangents being taken such as God's existence etc)

The ontological argument of human existence has many facets, either by chemical chance, matter in motion, causality i.e. action - reaction and so on, or the teleological Theist theory in which God created us and we are the product of that creation by the Almighty.

If as solipsism says, the mind is the only truth we can ultimately know, our thoughts are what make up everything we see, hear, touch, smell and taste then God does indeed fall into this category. From a religious perspective God's thoughts do indeed take shape, God thinks it an it occurs. This is made possible by the tenets that Judaism and Christianity attribute to God - Omniscient[1], Omnipotent[2] and Self-sufficient/Self-existent[3]

What strikes me as then becoming apparent is that, via religion's assertions and my theory that God would be deemed as the only true solipsist is that - How can we prove our own existence? Either we're here as a product of God thinking us into existence, or, we are just a train of thought belonging to God. God created _______ and saw that it was good etc etc or did he just think it, and thought that it was good?

If God knows all, he knows exactly how me writing this will end, he knows who'll read it, who'll stand against it in the position of Con, who'll be deemed to win by the most votes and so on: my point is, why would God bother? Why would God do something, physically will something in being, if he knows the criteria and outcome already? Why would God need to affirm something he already knows to be affirmed?

'In the beginning God created......'[4] - Did God create anything? Are we subsequent to the alluded beginning, and here I am writing this and asking these questions? Or is God just mulling it over, back their, at the beginning? Has the beginning begun yet, or are God's thoughts being collated and weighed up by God to see if it is worth it?

I get the feeling (or God is thinking of me thinking of getting the feeling) that maybe I have gone too far past my initial resolution, too many tangents? I'll let you decide.

[1] Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14
[2] Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6
[3] Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 50:10-12; Colossians 1:16
[4] Genesis 1:1


First off I would like to thank my opponent for a rather interesting and amusing debate idea that I'm sure I'll enjoy. As con it will be my job to prove that the God of Judaism/Christianity is not the ultimate solipsist, and ultimately to disprove solipsism in itself. My opponent puts out a few reasonable arguments , but I find his theories to have a few holes.

1. The first thing I would like to do is to briefly point out a major religious clash in my opponents argument, or a few rather. First off, we are questioning God's decisions and, according to both Christianity and Judaism, this is wrong and shouldn't be occuring. Second, if we are giving god a human characteristic, we are essentially comparing him to humans and trying to understand him. Since no one can understand God's infinite wisdom, this is wrong and pointless.
(Now on to the main points of the debate)

2. The definition of solipsism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is as follows: : a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing. My opponent stated himself that he recognizes God as all-knowing, and if this is true then God wouldn't be limited to knowing nothing but his own self-existence.

3. Now on to solipsism as a whole. For this argument I will use the very username of my opponent: Cogito ergo sum (which translates "I think therefore I am"). This is a philosophical statement in Latin used by Ren´┐Ż Descartes, which became a fundamental element of Western philosophy. The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who is doing the thinking). So if we all think, then we are not a figment of God's imagination.

4. Also, when the human dreams or is envolved in hallucination we loose the senses which we have when we are concious (taste, touch, smell, et cetra). When you dream of getting punched, you don't feel the punch, and you probably wake up in a cold sweat grateful that it wasn't real.

5. Just briefly I would like to point out the fact that my opponent used the Bible for many reasons in his argument. The Bible said god created mankind. It didn't say He thought about mankind. We should focus on and use what the bible says rather than what it doesn't say.

6. Lastly, in my opponents last few arguments, he mentions that God could just be mulling us over in order to see what would come of us. Also, like I mentioned before, he stated that God is all knowing. If all of this is true then there would be no need for God to mull it over to see what would happen because he already knows and this would be a pointless task.

As you see in the above, it is illogical and foolish to believe in such a theory as "God: The Ultimate Solipsist" because of so many contradictions in an already weak theory.

Once again, I would like to thank my opponent on a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by PhantomAphorism 7 years ago
I admit have only skimmed over this debate. But what you do guys think of this (relevant?) quote:
"Suppose there was no intelligence behind the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and, therefore, I have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought, so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." -C.S. Lewis
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
Not enough votes. Looks like an interesting topic, though.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 7 years ago
Depends on the size of the pot. One way to think about it, though arguably semantics.

Another thing to say would be that the finite can not be explained by terminology based on the infinite. How could you comprehend something of such paucity when all you deal in is the macro?
Posted by bpv1 7 years ago
Trying to explain the infinite in the finite terminology is not much different from trying to empty the whole pacific ocean into a pot....
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 7 years ago
ChuckHenryII - Thank you for the debate, you did raise some very good points.

But of course....I still side with myself on the debate :P
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
"I (the subject) exists because of the mind. "

That's not what Descartes meant at all. It's not that Descartes existed *because* his mind was active, it was he knew *of* his existence because his mind was active. Granted he acknowledged he couldn't be sure about anyone elses mind. :P
Posted by ChuckHenryII 7 years ago
btw read my third point for clearification on "I think therefore I am"

The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who is doing the thinking).

p.s. I didn't get into this in the debate because of the shortage of words but who's to say that we (humans) thought god into existense and not the other way around?
Posted by ChuckHenryII 7 years ago
God created Jesus, he didn't think of Jesus. Also Jesus was a real person and like jarob903 pointed out the concept is flawed in humans. Jesus being a direct link to god, biblicaly speaking of couse, make the concept flawed in god also. Plus, God didn't think it into existance, he created rather, and on top of that you have overlaying dimensions because if god brang jesus, and humanity, into existance what existance is there besides the existance in which god exist. If god is real then so are we.
Posted by jarob903 7 years ago
I believe that ChuckHenryII has missed the point of the argument. Solipsism also encloses that the mind, and the products of it. Meaning the only reality is what the mind can show or make true. In humans, solipsism is obviously flawed because things exist outside of an individual human itself. But in this God figure, nothing existed until God thought it into existance. His mind created all that is, and corresponds to solipsism. Jesus represented God, so Jesus is the perfect representation of Solipsism.

By the way, the philosophy I think therefore I am is an example of solipsism. I (the subject) exists because of the mind. The existence is a PRODUCT of the mind, therefore solipsism holds true.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ChuckHenryII 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51